Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Martin Mitchell]

Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >The 5.4.33-6 package is _not_ broken, and should not be removed.
> >It rightly conflicts with libc6 due to the different utmp format between
> >libc5 and libc6. The 5.4.33-7 package in hamm has modified utmp routines
> >so it can coexist with libc6.
> 
> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?

Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.

Martin.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Chris Fearnley]

'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
>
>Chris Fearnley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is breaking easy upgradeability really better than corrupting utmp?
>
>Yes, it means the system should work properly at all stages of the upgrade.

Still, the fact that libc5-5.4.33-7 conflicts with libc5-dev means that
I have to break C, tcl, ncurses, and slang development (on my system)
in order to install just the libc6 library.  So libc5 in bo and hamm
need to be fixed.  Agreed?

In my case my first phase of upgrading is to install mutt only (needs
libc6) and leave the development environment the same as bo.  I can
afford to break utmp, but not libc5-dev.

But I think my other post specifies a solution (a solution for utmp
AND development).  Has anyone found any problems with it??  (Beside
David who correctly points out that conflicting with libc5-dev is
completely unnecessary as all libc*-dev packages should provide and
conflict with the virtual package libc-dev.)

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley  |  Linux/Internet Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf   |  Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf  |  "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Is "cp -a" allowed in debian/rules?

[Remco Blaakmeer]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Oliver Elphick wrote:

> So use this, which should work on any Unix anywhere:
> 
>   cd ; find . -print | cpio -pdm 

But then the package would have to pre-depend on cpio, which isn't even a
`required' or `essential' package. I think this is a bad thing to use in
a {pre,post}{inst,rm} script.

`fileutils', which holds cp, is an essential package on any Debian system.
So no matter what hardware Debian will be ported to, it will always have a
GNU cp. Or else it will not be a Debian system.

Remco


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Brandon Mitchell]

Question:

Would it possible to make a (not altdev):

debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb

that conflicts with libc6-dev?  And would this solve everyones problem?
I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn't have problems
with the utmp.

Thanks,
Brandon

-
Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   "We all know linux is great... it
PGP: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED]  does infinite loops in 5 seconds"
Phone: (757) 221-4847  --Linus Torvalds



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Martin Mitchell]

Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev.  Not
> everyone is going that route yet.

True, so they can stay with bo for now.

> Okay there is a different utmp format.  Lets try to list the packages from
> libc6 that care about utmp and would actually mangle it if running with
> the old libc5 utmp format:
> 
> login
> telnetd (maybe, i think it hands off to login)
> sshd
> rlogind
> last (well, it will show the mangled data)
> who/w (ditto)
> ftpd

There's probably a few more, eg screen.

> The problem is that there are many people who don't have a problem with
> the minor issue of possible utmp corruption (which will only happen if you
> install something that is compiled with libc6 and does utmp stuff), but
> have a MAJOR PROBLEM being FORCED to ABANDON THEIR OLD DEVELOPMENT
> ENVIRONMENT.

Again, please desist from a flaming style of reply.

If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
benefits of some newer packages.

Martin.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[David Welton]

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> 
> If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
> mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
> anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
> packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
> benefits of some newer packages.

Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo?  Ie, the
bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been
discussing for some time?

Ciao,
-- 
David Welton  http://www.efn.org/~davidw 

Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Hardware Question

[Mike]

Question:
I have a Shuttle 569 TX Motherboard, Soundblaster Vibra 16 Plug&Play
Sound Card (Creative Labs ), USR 56K Internal Modem, Matrox Mysteak
Video Card, HP Ink Jet 694C Printer, and a Acer 12x Cd Rom.  Are these
all compatible Hardware and how to configure them.

Thanks in Advance
Mike Ackerman


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Chris Fearnley]

'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
>
>If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
>choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
>as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
>mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
>anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
>packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
>benefits of some newer packages.

No, I think we can fix the packages to support both utmp compatibility
and easier upgradeability.

Why can't we do the following:

In both bo-updates and hamm:
  libc5:  No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
(solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily)

In hamm:
  libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6)
(solves the problem of utmp corruption)

Always:
  libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev

I think that these two changes fix the problems.  Does anyone
disagree?  Agree?

-- 
Christopher J. Fearnley  |  Linux/Internet Consulting
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   |  Design Science Revolutionary
http://www.netaxs.com/~cjf   |  Explorer in Universe
ftp://ftp.netaxs.com/people/cjf  |  "Dare to be Naive" -- Bucky Fuller


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

dselect, argh

[Hamish Moffatt]

For some reason, dselect just decided to remove a whole bunch of
packages that I CERTAINLY DID NOT MARK FOR REMOVAL, like
lynx, apache, mutt, gs-aladdin, and goodness knows what else
since I hit ^C. The available packages list looks fine, so they
are not suddenly obselete. It just upgraded a whole lot of things
fine but when I picked remove, when on its rampage.

Anyone else seen something like this? I will probably be spending
a few hours fixing it now. Sheesh.


Hamish
-- 
Hamish Moffatt, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at ftp://ftp.rising.com.au/pub/hamish. PGP#EFA6B9D5
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.   http://hamish.home.ml.org


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Hardware Question

[bruce]

Just what operating system do you want to run? If the answer is Debian
Linux, please re-post this question to debian-user@lists.debian.org . If
it's windows, please find someone else to help you, we only do Linux.

Thanks

Bruce Perens


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

developer lists to leave news gateway

[bruce]

I asked Chris to remove all of the developer lists from the news gateway.
So, if you need to keep getting the lists, be sure to subscribe.
The folks on debian-user want to stay on the gateway. Chris is done with
his papers for this semester and will work on the X-No-Archive problem.

Thanks

Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:

> 'Martin Mitchell wrote:'
> >
> >If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> >choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> >as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
> >mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
> >anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
> >packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
> >benefits of some newer packages.
> 
> No, I think we can fix the packages to support both utmp compatibility
> and easier upgradeability.
> 
> Why can't we do the following:
> 
> In both bo-updates and hamm:
>   libc5:  No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
> (solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily)
> 
> In hamm:
>   libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6)
> (solves the problem of utmp corruption)
> 
> Always:
>   libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev
> 
> I think that these two changes fix the problems.  Does anyone
> disagree?  Agree?

This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
that can be used with libc5-dev.  This is the problem I'm arguing against
right now.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

68k test machine?

[Ean Schuessler]

I have a Quadra950 that I am thinking of coaxing into running Linux 
and slapping on the T1. Would a 68k test environment be useful?
-- 
___
Ean SchuesslerFreak
Novare International Inc. Freak Central
*** WARNING: This signature may contain jokes.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Remco Blaakmeer]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> 
> > Why can't we do the following:
> > 
> > In both bo-updates and hamm:
> >   libc5:  No conflicts, no depends (predepends on ldso, of course)
> > (solves the problem of not being able to upgrade easily)
> > 
> > In hamm:
> >   libc6: Conflicts: libc5 (<=5.4.23-6)
> > (solves the problem of utmp corruption)
> > 
> > Always:
> >   libc*-dev: Provides: libc-dev; Conflicts libc-dev
> > 
> > I think that these two changes fix the problems.  Does anyone
> > disagree?  Agree?
> 
> This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
> that can be used with libc5-dev.

Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.

Remco


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: dselect, argh

[Remco Blaakmeer]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Hamish Moffatt wrote:

> For some reason, dselect just decided to remove a whole bunch of
> packages that I CERTAINLY DID NOT MARK FOR REMOVAL, like
> lynx, apache, mutt, gs-aladdin, and goodness knows what else
> since I hit ^C. The available packages list looks fine, so they
> are not suddenly obselete. It just upgraded a whole lot of things
> fine but when I picked remove, when on its rampage.
> 
> Anyone else seen something like this? I will probably be spending
> a few hours fixing it now. Sheesh.

Have you, by any chance, forced dpkg to install or remove any packages
lately?

Remco


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:

> Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > Installing libc5 from hamm forces you to abandon your old libc5
> > development system since it CONFLICTS (correctly) with libc5-dev.  Not
> > everyone is going that route yet.
> 
> True, so they can stay with bo for now.

The problem is that there are people that want updated packages from hamm
without wanting to recompile them.  I don't consider it an acceptable
answer to tell them that it can't be done without tearing apart their
current development environment.

> > Okay there is a different utmp format.  Lets try to list the packages from
> > libc6 that care about utmp and would actually mangle it if running with
> > the old libc5 utmp format:
> > 
> > login
> > telnetd (maybe, i think it hands off to login)
> > sshd
> > rlogind
> > last (well, it will show the mangled data)
> > who/w (ditto)
> > ftpd
> 
> There's probably a few more, eg screen.

Okay, I admit I may have missed a few.

> > The problem is that there are many people who don't have a problem with
> > the minor issue of possible utmp corruption (which will only happen if you
> > install something that is compiled with libc6 and does utmp stuff), but
> > have a MAJOR PROBLEM being FORCED to ABANDON THEIR OLD DEVELOPMENT
> > ENVIRONMENT.
> 
> Again, please desist from a flaming style of reply.

I've found that it occasionally shakes out the woodwork and provokes
replies (look at all the flamewars on USENET).  I wasn't getting any
reaction from a more rational arguement, so unfortunatly I had to stoop to
shouting.

> If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
> mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
> anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
> packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
> benefits of some newer packages.

I think it is unreasonable to expect people to trash their current setup
just to run a few updated programs.  I agree that utmp corruption can be a
concern, especially on machines with multiple users.  However, it becomes
significantly less a concern with small one-person systems which are
likely to be a majority of those who want to upgrade "just a few things".
I want to provide them with a route that doesn't involve replacing every
development package or recompiling the updated software.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> 
> > This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
> > that can be used with libc5-dev.
> 
> Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
> packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.

The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm.  Hamm has
libc5-altdev instead.  This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass removal and
installation of a whole set of development packages.  I'm against forcing
people into that just to install "a couple of packages" from hamm.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Brandon Mitchell wrote:

> Would it possible to make a (not altdev):
> 
> debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/oldlibs/libc5-dev_5.4.33-7.deb
> 
> that conflicts with libc6-dev?  And would this solve everyones problem?
> I'm just wondering if the libc5 in this directory doesn't have problems
> with the utmp.

This was considered at the beginning of the migration and the basic
consensus was that we didn't want to maintain both dev and altdev packages
for libraries.  While I generally support that idea, I do see some merit
in making a single exception for libc5.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> > 
> > If they want to remain with a libc5 development environment, they have two
> > choices, stay with bo, or use altdev from hamm. You regard utmp corruption
> > as a minor issue, I would not, especially if I expected that staying with
> > mainly bo would give me a stable system. No one is forcing them to do
> > anything, however it is not unreasonable to expect them to upgrade some
> > packages, including replacing -dev with -altdev, if they want to have the
> > benefits of some newer packages.
> 
> Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo?  Ie, the
> bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been
> discussing for some time?

My goal is to make doing this basically unnecessary, freeing people to
spend time actually finishing hamm.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, Joe Emenaker wrote:

> 
> 
> On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:
> 
> > Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY REASONS WHY UTMP CORRUPTION IS SO EVIL THAT WE
> > > NEED TO MAKE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO RUN A FEW LIBC6 PROGRAMS ON BO GO
> > > THROUGH HELL.
> >
> > Say you're an ISP running Debian (bo) on a bunch of machines (and
> > these people do exist).
> 
> And I'm one of them. :)
> 
> Here's a thought. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this utmp/libc6/libc5
> fiasco is something that applies to all (or almost all) Linux
> distributions, no? (Or is libc6 a Debianism?)
> 
> If everybody in the Linux game is migrating to libc6, then what are the
> other piecewise-upgradable distributions (like RedHat) doing to avoid
> ugliness like what we're facing?

They hid their libc6 system until the entire thing worked.  I'm not
entirely certain how they handle the upgrade, since I don't have a spare
system to play with redhat at the moment.  However, in the past, major
redhat upgrades involved booting to single-user mode.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On 12 Dec 1997, Rob Browning wrote:

> The problem is that maybe *you* know what packages those are, but most
> users expect to be able to upgrade without major system services
> breaking if dpkg/dselect doesn't indicate that there's a problem.
> Your approach would cause silent failures.
> 
> Imagine that (given the eariler example) the ISP upgrades the stuff,
> then a week later realizes that someone may be trying to hack their
> system.  The go to "who" (and friends) to see what's going on, and
> they get an empty listing.  This is going to cause someone to need
> heartburn medication.
> 
> (Hope I've got my facts straight and I'm not overlooking something
> obvious.)

I admit this is a potential problem, but I don't see ISPs as a major
target for this kind of "minor upgrade".  From what I can tell, a majority
of people who want "just a few" packages from hamm have small home
installations, not large userbases.  For these people, utmp corruption may
not matter as they're the only ones ever on their system.  In addition,
the packages upgraded aren't usually utmp related ones, but programs like
your mailreader, or Gimp or whateevr (although I must admit that X is
probably a common upgrade here, and xterm/rxvt would cause a problem).  If
we plaster the upgrade notes with large signs warning about said
corruption, we still leave a path for those to which it doesn't matter.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[David Welton]

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:11:37AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Welton wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:44:51PM +1100, Martin Mitchell wrote:

> > Isn't this the whole point of compiling hamm packages for bo?  Ie, the
> > bo-updates, bo-current or whatever directory that we have been
> > discussing for some time?

> My goal is to make doing this basically unnecessary, freeing people to
> spend time actually finishing hamm.

I dont think anyone is 'wasting their time' on bo-updates - I think
there are a lot of people such as myself who have up to date packages
who would like to provide them for bo users as well.  As for spending
my time doing non maintainer releases of other packages, I have alread
done what I could... I have a look through the list every now and
then, but don't see many that I am interested in or capable of, or are
sure that the maintainer is gone.

Maybe we should do a definitive maintainer ping with libc5 packages -
show some sign that you are going to do something, or orphan it.

It's a bit frustrating not knowing if people are really active or not
- I might be convinced to take some more packages just to update them,
if I knew that the maintainers had abbandoned them for sure.

Ciao,
-- 
David Welton  http://www.efn.org/~davidw 

Debian GNU/Linux - www.debian.org


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> >   (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> >anyway!)
> 
> I can add this in the next release (due very soon) so let me know ASAP.

Please don't.  This will still gratuitously break small upgrades.  Adding
a warning about potential corruption should be sufficient.



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[David Engel]

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> > version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
> > packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.
> 
> The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm.  Hamm has
> libc5-altdev instead.  This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff

So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
-altdev packages.  It isn't that hard.

David
-- 
David EngelODS Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:06:07AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > > Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> > > version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
> > > packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.
> > 
> > The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm.  Hamm has
> > libc5-altdev instead.  This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
> 
> So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
> -altdev packages.  It isn't that hard.

Trust me, if I thought I was competant enough to do so, I would.  However,
I don't trust myself not to break such an important package.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Martin Mitchell]

"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > >   (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> > >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> > >anyway!)
> > 
> > I can add this in the next release (due very soon) so let me know ASAP.
> 
> Please don't.  This will still gratuitously break small upgrades.  Adding
> a warning about potential corruption should be sufficient.

I disagree. The whole integrity of the libc5->libc6 transition will be
broken by such hacks, and will keep Debian 2.0 unstable forever if we
resort to this.

Please add the Conflicts libc5 (<= 5.4.33-6) line.

Martin.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Scott K. Ellis]

On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:

> "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > >   (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> > > >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> > > >anyway!)
> > > 
> > > I can add this in the next release (due very soon) so let me know ASAP.
> > 
> > Please don't.  This will still gratuitously break small upgrades.  Adding
> > a warning about potential corruption should be sufficient.
> 
> I disagree. The whole integrity of the libc5->libc6 transition will be
> broken by such hacks, and will keep Debian 2.0 unstable forever if we
> resort to this.

If libc6 conflicts with every libc5 that can be installed with libc5-dev,
you've ruined every chance I have of providing a useful workaround to
people who want libc6 and to keep libc5-dev.  I don't consider using
--force in dpkg a viable alternative.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken

[Martin Mitchell]

"Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On 13 Dec 1997, Martin Mitchell wrote:
> 
> > "Scott K. Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > On Fri, 12 Dec 1997, David Engel wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 1997 at 03:19:29PM -0500, Chris Fearnley wrote:
> > > > > libc6: Conflicts: (libc5<<5.4.33-6)
> > > > >   (Necessary due to utmp issue -- Hell, someone upgrading from a CD
> > > > >with stock 1.3.1 will be able to corrupt utmp in the current scheme
> > > > >anyway!)
> > > > 
> > > > I can add this in the next release (due very soon) so let me know ASAP.
> > > 
> > > Please don't.  This will still gratuitously break small upgrades.  Adding
> > > a warning about potential corruption should be sufficient.
> > 
> > I disagree. The whole integrity of the libc5->libc6 transition will be
> > broken by such hacks, and will keep Debian 2.0 unstable forever if we
> > resort to this.
> 
> If libc6 conflicts with every libc5 that can be installed with libc5-dev,
> you've ruined every chance I have of providing a useful workaround to
> people who want libc6 and to keep libc5-dev.  I don't consider using
> --force in dpkg a viable alternative.

I don't consider using --force an alternative either. My question is, how
many options do we really want to support? What is the whole point of the
altdev series of packages? To enable libc5 development on a libc6 system.

My primary concern is the stability of systems here. And since this issue
is a choice between either a stable system and a slightly longer upgrade,
or an unstable system and a shorter upgrade, I'll still choose stability.

Martin.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#988: `script' is insecure, and general tty insecurity

[Nag]

Package:  general
Status:   pending
Severity: normal

This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months).  Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.


The history of this bug can be found at:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/988.html
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/db/988.html


For more information on the bug reporting system, visit:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/


If this bug has been closed recently, please check both web sites listed
above.  If the timestamp of the main site (www.debian.org) is old, then
the change in status has not yet been recorded.

If you feel the bug should not be marked with a severity of "normal",
instructions on changing this can be found on the above web sites.

If you no longer maintain this package, contact Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and ask him to update the "overrides" file to point to the new maintainer.
Please provide the name and address of the new maintainer if you know who
it is.

Please do not reply to the "nag" address unless there is a problem with the
actual messages being generated.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#4784: dselect/dpkg errors

[Nag]

Package:  general
Status:   pending
Severity: normal

This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months).  Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.


The history of this bug can be found at:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/4784.html
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/db/4784.html


For more information on the bug reporting system, visit:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/


If this bug has been closed recently, please check both web sites listed
above.  If the timestamp of the main site (www.debian.org) is old, then
the change in status has not yet been recorded.

If you feel the bug should not be marked with a severity of "normal",
instructions on changing this can be found on the above web sites.

If you no longer maintain this package, contact Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and ask him to update the "overrides" file to point to the new maintainer.
Please provide the name and address of the new maintainer if you know who
it is.

Please do not reply to the "nag" address unless there is a problem with the
actual messages being generated.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#6688: release configuration not managed properly

[Nag]

Package:  general
Status:   pending
Severity: normal

This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months).  Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.


The history of this bug can be found at:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/6688.html
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/db/6688.html


For more information on the bug reporting system, visit:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/


If this bug has been closed recently, please check both web sites listed
above.  If the timestamp of the main site (www.debian.org) is old, then
the change in status has not yet been recorded.

If you feel the bug should not be marked with a severity of "normal",
instructions on changing this can be found on the above web sites.

If you no longer maintain this package, contact Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and ask him to update the "overrides" file to point to the new maintainer.
Please provide the name and address of the new maintainer if you know who
it is.

Please do not reply to the "nag" address unless there is a problem with the
actual messages being generated.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#7112: xterm should use not-yet-existing pty allocation method

[Nag]

Package:  general
Status:   pending
Severity: normal

This mail is being sent to you because the indicated bug report has been
marked as overdue (i.e. has been open longer than 9 months).  Overdue
reminders are repeated monthly.


The history of this bug can be found at:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/db/7112.html
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/db/7112.html


For more information on the bug reporting system, visit:

http://www.debian.org/Bugs/
or  http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/debian/Bugs/


If this bug has been closed recently, please check both web sites listed
above.  If the timestamp of the main site (www.debian.org) is old, then
the change in status has not yet been recorded.

If you feel the bug should not be marked with a severity of "normal",
instructions on changing this can be found on the above web sites.

If you no longer maintain this package, contact Guy Maor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and ask him to update the "overrides" file to point to the new maintainer.
Please provide the name and address of the new maintainer if you know who
it is.

Please do not reply to the "nag" address unless there is a problem with the
actual messages being generated.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)

[Guy Maor]

Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*

oh, yuck.  You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
the new structure.  I'm sure you can figure out a way to dynamically
determine which type of structure is being used.  That would be best.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: fdisk3

[Guy Maor]

G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>   The interface works the same as fdisk

Um, no.  There is no interface.  sfdisk is driven completely by a
config file describing the desired partition table.

Furthermore, it's already on your hard drive if you're running hamm.
It's part of util-linux.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Guy Maor]

David Engel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
> -altdev packages.  It isn't that hard.

That's really the only workable solution.

David, I do think you ought to add the Conflicts to older versions of
libc5 to libc6.  This will prevent breaking systems still running the
original 1.3.1.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: ld: cannot open -ltermcap: No such file or directory

[Guy Maor]

Paul Seelig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> gcc -g -O2 -Wall -Wno-switch -fno-strength-reduce -malign-loops=2 
> -malign-jumps=
> 2 -malign-functions=2 -Demacs -I../src  -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I/usr/include/db 
> -I/usr
> /X11R6/include /usr/src/xemacs-20.3/lib-src/wakeup.c  -L/usr/X11R6/lib 
> -ltermcap
>  -lcurses -lm -o wakeup
> ld: cannot open -ltermcap: No such file or directory

You should link with -lncurses.  Ncurses does termcap UI emulation.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Uploaded libtermreadkey-perl 2.09-1 (source i386) to master

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz)  wrote on 12.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > Format: 1.5
> > Date: Tue,  9 Dec 1997 00:21:58 +0100
> > Source: libtermreadkey-perl
> > Binary: libtermreadkey-perl
>
> Just for the case, that the module is called Term::ReadKey, you should
> choose libterm-readkey-perl for the Debian package.

Hmm ... can easily change that. I suppose it's not yet been installed by  
many people :-)

> (Why hasn't this package not been discussed on debian-devel? Or did I miss
> something?)

Because it's been included in adbbs before, so it's not really new. I  
thought it was silly to include it in there, so I split it off.


MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: packaging agrep

[Christian Schwarz]

On 12 Dec 1997, Sven Rudolph wrote:

> G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > I am planning to package agrep, a grep-like tool that allows to
> > 
> > We have it already.  I think it comes with glimpse .
> 
> So it should be split into an extra package ?

Yes, probably a good idea.


Thanks,

Chris

--  Christian Schwarz
   [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
  
 CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
 http://www.schwarz-online.com


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Is "cp -a" allowed in debian/rules?

[Christian Schwarz]

On 12 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote:

> Douglas Bates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > But consider the recent discussion of porting dpkg to other systems.
> > If you were using dpkg on Solaris or HP-UX or ... you may not be
> > able to count on cp understanding the -a flag.
> 
> Fooblah.  Debian is about systems integration; GNU fileutils is an
> Essential part of that system.  Do you want to ban the use of install
> -p, features of GNU Make, $() in shell scripts etc.?  debian/rules not
> only can but should assume it's running on a Debian system.

Completely agreed. After all, we are working on an operating system (I
don't like the term "distribution" too much) and _not_ on a set of
packages which should compile on _any_ UNIX. 


Thanks,

Chris

--  Christian Schwarz
   [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
   
PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
  
 CS Software goes online! Visit our new home page at
 http://www.schwarz-online.com


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)

[Bart Schuller]

On Dec 12, Turbo Fredriksson wrote
> On 12 Dec 1997, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> 
> > Just use the libc functions setutent/getutent. They're available in
> > both libc5 and glibc2.
> 
> Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
[...]
> *sigh* What can a poor perl proggrammer do...? :)

man perlxstut
man h2xs

something along the lines of

 h2xs -n Sys::Utmp utmp

Looking at utmp.h, it doesn't seem that much work to make a proper perl
extension for utmp handling.
I might even try to do it myself. No promises though.

-- 
Bart Schuller  [EMAIL PROTECTED] At Lunalabs, where the
Lunatech Research  http://www.lunatech.com/  future is made today..
Partner of The Perl Institute  http://www.perl.org/Linux http://www.li.org/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Remco Blaakmeer]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > 
> > > This still forces people installing libc6 to upgrade libc5 past a version
> > > that can be used with libc5-dev.
> > 
> > Would it? What if they would also upgrade their libc5-dev to the same
> > version as the libc5 in hamm? Would that help? In the past these two
> > packages always had to have the same version, AFAIK.
> 
> The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm.  Hamm has
> libc5-altdev instead.  This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
> into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass removal and
> installation of a whole set of development packages.  I'm against forcing
> people into that just to install "a couple of packages" from hamm.

Didn't I reply to your reply to the proposal that there would come a hamm
libc5-dev? I believe you agreed with that proposal in other messages. And
though I am not at all an expert on this, I think that this would have
been the right solution, especially if you had started this discussion
about six months ago, when hamm just started to be developed:

bo: libc5
bo: libc5-dev, depends on bo-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev

hamm: libc6, conflicts with bo-libc5
hamm: libc6-dev, depends on hamm-libc6, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
hamm: libc5, different (higher) version from bo with modifications needed
  to work together with libc6
hamm: libc5-dev, depends on hamm-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5, conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
  hamm-libc6-dev, provides (probably) libc5-dev

This would make the upgrade path easier, IMHO: first upgrade libc5 and
libc5-dev (and ldso, I think), then install libc6 and other packages.

Remco


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: bashisms

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett)  wrote on 27.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> There are alot of scripts which use unnecessary bashisms. Apart from complex
> scripts most of these can be easily changed to conform to the POSIX shell.
> This has the added advantage of meaning that those who want to can use ash
> as /bin/sh and reap the benefits of improved performance.

Hmmm ... I remember someone claiming that ash _isn't_ a POSIX shell?

MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: BS in rxvt+ncurses

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Lowe)  wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > BTW I'd be interested to hear any justification of why <--- == DEL
>
> Well,  from a sheer visual standpoint,  seeing an arrow pointing to the
> left,  like on the BS key (<--),  makes one think that pushing that
> button's going to move the cursor that way,  just like the other arrow
> keys.

Well, that's what the <-- == DEL proposal wants to have, too.

>   I've NEVER understood the funky behavior of the BS key on *nix.

What "funky behaviour"?

In my VCs, <-- gives DEL and destructively moves the cursor to the left.
Under DOS, <-- gives BS and destructively moves the cursor to the left.

Where is the problem?

MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor)  wrote on 13.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
>
> oh, yuck.  You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
> the new structure.  I'm sure you can figure out a way to dynamically
> determine which type of structure is being used.  That would be best.

Of course, it's quite possible to add those functions - h2xs and C::Scan  
will help there :-)

I've looked at that, but decided either someone more experienced should do  
that, or else I'd be interested in a more general solution (similar to the  
POSIX module, but covering Linux, or Unix98, or 86open once it's there, or  
something like that), and that's definitely nothing for the short term.

MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: BS in rxvt+ncurses

[Kai Henningsen]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander E. Apke)  wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>   I think there is another reason for choosing <--- == BS, for
> internationalization.  I believe it requires <--- == BS, though I am not
> entirely sure.  This may be the reason for the push for <--- == BS, even
> though debian developers seem to accept  <--- == DEL.

I see absolutely no reason why it should make any difference at all for  
i18n. Where did you get that idea? Doesn't make any sense to me.

>   I agree, but if feel the opposite <--- == BS should be default
> because most linux users come from the dos world, and the keys on a linux
> terminal/xterm should act the same as in dos.  Emacs users know more about
> unix and therfore should know how to change stty erase

This is silly. They only need to "act the same" insofar as they cause  
similar effects in programs; there is absolutely no reason to generate the  
exact same binary codes.


MfG Kai


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)

[Turbo Fredriksson]

On 13 Dec 1997, Guy Maor wrote:

> oh, yuck.  You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
> the new structure.

Thing is, I _THINK_ I'm already using the new structure, but I don't know
for sure...

>  I'm sure you can figure out a way to dynamically
> determine which type of structure is being used.  That would be best.

Sure, no prob, IF I know what the differences are... :)

---
 Turbo_ /// If there are no Amigas in heaven, send me to HELL!
 ^\\\/
 Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are !
 Turbo Fredriksson Tel: +46-704-697645
 S-415 10 Göteborg[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 SWEDEN www5.tripnet.se/~turbo
   My PGP key can be found at: 'www5.tripnet.se/~turbo/pgp.html'
 Key fingerprint = B7 92 93 0E 06 94 D6 22  98 1F 0B 5B FE 33 A1 0B 
---


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Week in Sweden

[Richard Braakman]

I will be in Gothenburg from Monday the 15th to Monday the 22nd (this
month).  It will probably be difficult to reach me during that time,
and I will not read the mailing lists at all.

I will not be able to make any package releases because I will leave
my PGP key behind.  I maintain the packages cgoban, hextype, dutch
(idutch and wdutch), mpack, xconq (and xconq-doc), freeciv, and
maelstrom.

If there are any Debian developers (or developers-to-be) in
Gothenburg, I would love to meet them.  Perhaps we can exchange PGP
key signatures as well.

Richard Braakman


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Libc6 progress: 1997-12-12

[Yann Dirson]

Richard Braakman writes:
 > James LewisMoss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
 >   xemacs20-20.2-4  (Mixed dependencies; waiting for libcompface?)
 >   xemacs19-19.16-1 (Mixed dependencies; waiting for libcompface?)

libcompface has already been converted.

-- 
Yann Dirson  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
alt-email: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email:   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.a2points.com/homepage/3475232 |
-
A computer engineer's looking for a job !
-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[Scott K. Ellis]

On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> 
> > The problem is that libc5-dev doesn't exist in hamm.  Hamm has
> > libc5-altdev instead.  This forces people who want to compile libc5 stuff
> > into the altgcc/lib*-altdev mode, requiring the mass removal and
> > installation of a whole set of development packages.  I'm against forcing
> > people into that just to install "a couple of packages" from hamm.
> 
> Didn't I reply to your reply to the proposal that there would come a hamm
> libc5-dev? I believe you agreed with that proposal in other messages. And
> though I am not at all an expert on this, I think that this would have
> been the right solution, especially if you had started this discussion
> about six months ago, when hamm just started to be developed:
> 
> bo: libc5
> bo: libc5-dev, depends on bo-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
> 
> hamm: libc6, conflicts with bo-libc5
> hamm: libc6-dev, depends on hamm-libc6, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
> hamm: libc5, different (higher) version from bo with modifications needed
>   to work together with libc6
> hamm: libc5-dev, depends on hamm-libc5, provides and conflicts with libc-dev
> hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5, conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
>   hamm-libc6-dev, provides (probably) libc5-dev
> 
> This would make the upgrade path easier, IMHO: first upgrade libc5 and
> libc5-dev (and ldso, I think), then install libc6 and other packages.

If someone will build this setup, I'll happily withdraw my objections.
This seems to be the best of both worlds.  Although the dependency on
libc6 by libc5 still appears spurious and should probably be removed.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[David Engel]

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 01:37:04AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> > So find someone to modify the libc5 in hamm to build both -dev and
> > -altdev packages.  It isn't that hard.
> 
> Trust me, if I thought I was competant enough to do so, I would.  However,
> I don't trust myself not to break such an important package.

You should trust yourself more.  It should be very easy.  Just clone
the section of debian/rules that builds the -altdev package, change a
few paths and you're done.  If you're not sure that your new packages
are correct, ask others to look at them.

David
-- 
David EngelODS Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: revised proposed solution (was Re: Bug#15859: libc6 in stable is horribly broken)

[David Engel]

On Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 11:47:50AM -0500, Scott K. Ellis wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Dec 1997, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> > hamm: libc5-altdev, depends on hamm-libc5,

OK.

> > conflicts with bo-libc5-dev and
> >   hamm-libc6-dev,

Unnecessary.

> > provides (probably) libc5-dev

Definitely not!  libc5-dev implies that libc5 is the default
compilation environment installed in /usr/include.

David
-- 
David EngelODS Networks
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   1001 E. Arapaho Road
(972) 234-6400 Richardson, TX  75081


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Hardware Question

[thomppj]

I apologize for the unfriendly message from one of our other developers
recently.

Yes, these pieces of hardware should work fine with Linux.  Debian is
just a distribution of Linux, so it will be fine too.  As far as
configuring, that is a more difficult question.  The majority of that
is done when you 1) recompile your kernel, b) setup X windows, c) and
other little things, like setting up ppp.

For those, I recommend you a) read, read, read!  There is nothing more
valuable then reading through all the FAQs and HOWTOs and manpages
available on a subject before you ask a question on a mailing list -
you will often answer your own question.  b) Subscribe to debian-user
and ask future questions there, for some of the developers can get
obnoxious when they resond :)

Extra Hint:  When trying to find an answer, always go to the
/usr/doc/??? directory first (where ??? is the Debian package name) and
look at all the files there, especially ones such as README and
README.debian.

Good Luck and happy Linuxing!

On 12 Dec, Mike wrote:
> Question:
> I have a Shuttle 569 TX Motherboard, Soundblaster Vibra 16 Plug&Play
> Sound Card (Creative Labs ), USR 56K Internal Modem, Matrox Mysteak
> Video Card, HP Ink Jet 694C Printer, and a Acer 12x Cd Rom.  Are these
> all compatible Hardware and how to configure them.
> 
> Thanks in Advance
> Mike Ackerman
> 
> 
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
> Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

-- 
- Paul J Thompson

---
A squirrel tangled with a 23,000 volt line in
Stillwater, Oklahoma on Saturday, Nov. 22, 1997.  The
   results blacked out the entire campus of Oklahoma State
  University, and, of course, one squirrel.



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: glibc pre-release 2.0.6-0.4

[Manoj Srivastava]

Hi,

To all who are interested, a new verion of kernel-package has
 been uploaded to Master. This involves tweaks in the kernel sorce and
 headers packages to accomodate the new way of doing things in libc6.

I have tested it with building header and source packages for
 2.0.32, and an image package for 2.1.72. Testing and bug reports are
 appreciated as usual.

manoj

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Format: 1.5
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 12:46:47 -0600
Source: kernel-package
Binary: kernel-package
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.48
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Description: 
 kernel-package - Debian Linux kernel package build scripts.
Changes: 
 kernel-package (3.48) unstable; urgency=low
 .
   * Important changes for kernel-source-* and kernel-header-* packages: now
 kernel-source-* packages also provide the exact kernel-header-* (libc6
 need only depend on kernel-header-* now.
   * The kernel-header-* and kernel-source-* packages now also maitain the
 /usr/src/linux-X.YY.ZZ links (in addition to the /usr/src/linux links)
 This is used in the libc6 package.
Files: 
 d6726cc30c9c39084d65391186a7e8b7 617 misc optional kernel-package_3.48.dsc
 79002612e913d998eec990407f82c24b 74257 misc optional kernel-package_3.48.tar.gz
 8f03421f1c67691597b0db84f07f8bab 75014 misc optional 
kernel-package_3.48_all.deb

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: 2.6.3a
Charset: noconv
Comment: Requires PGP version 2.6 or later.

iQCVAwUBNJLZ8G3FgPXHJhCVAQFjjAQA3RoIFeYnO8BER97Oib84PmetKA417J95
6bF0rIGr30lM7lIqRtTUs5VRN3HO2E+n6nsVPMT64FR2qHi2EhlRM4ZSh7tMsHyB
K/4zLEeluV9GctKt0aXW8izvwhVRk2eh7S/j6Yw3aRYMhugMbRR2ymfoYKvxZg8i
9642sc87+lw=
=e0xv
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
 You know that feeling when you're leaning back on a stool and it
 starts to tip over?  Well, that's how I feel all the time. Steven
 Wright
Manoj Srivastava  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

I take debmake

[Santiago Vila Doncel]

reassign 13578 gzip
reassign 14612 ash
reassign 15005 ash
stop

Please, don't reassign packaging bugs to debmake, but open new bugs
instead. debstd is not a shared library and therefore fixing it will not
`magically' fix all packages using it in debian/rules.

I have taken over the maintenance of debmake (on a temporary basis).
Some time ago, Ian said he was going to write a replacement for it, so I'm
just going to keep debmake frozen and will fix bugs if I receive suitable
patches.

Thanks.


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: 68k test machine?

[bruce]

Does that mean there's a Mac kernel now?

Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: 68k test machine?

[Vincent Renardias]

On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Does that mean there's a Mac kernel now?

there is a kernel for m68k Macs, but it supports very few models by now...
I only tested it with success on a Mac IIci.
The only corrently supported machines by now are LC,LC2,IIci,IIcx.

--
- Vincent RENARDIAS [EMAIL PROTECTED],pipo.com,debian.org} -
- Debian/GNU Linux:   Pipo:WAW:   -
- http://www.fr.debian.orghttp://www.pipo.com  http://www.waw.com -
---
- "La fonctionnalite Son Visuel vous delivre des avertissements visuels." -
-  [Message durant l'installation de Windows95] :wq


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Bug#15859: libc5 in stable is horribly broken (fwd)

[Guy Maor]

Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Sure, no prob, IF I know what the differences are... :)

Assuming you have libc6-dev and libc5-altdev installed,
/usr/include/utmpbits.h has the new structure, and
/usr/i486-linuxlibc1/include/utmp.h has the old structure.

The new structure has many more fields, and the sizes of some of the
fields are bigger.


Guy


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Hardware Question

[bruce]

My message was not meant to be "unfriendly". Mr. Thompson did not
understand that we are getting a lot of questions from windows users
who find this list in error, and since you did not mention Linux
or Debian, it's first necessary to determine if that's what you are
interested in. If so, there are many experienced people to help you at
debian-user@lists.debian.org .

If it happens that you _do_ want to install Debian, I have some question
regarding whether your video card will work in accelerated mode under
Debian 1.3 . I don't see an X server that claims to support it, although
later free servers and at least one commercial server do indeed do so.
The best way to find out about this is to find someone who has the same
hardware and has already successfully configured it, who can then tell you
exactly what they did. Since debian-user has about 3 times as many people
reading it as debian-devel, and since those people are looking for user
questions like yours to answer, it's most likely that you will find a
detailed answer there.

Bruce Perens


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: 68k test machine?

[bruce]

There's a box in the garage here that says "Mac IIx". I've been holding on
to it hoping that it might someday support the 68k port. Any chance of
that?

Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Debian-devel subscriber count

[bruce]

Goodness gracious. Debian-devel has >400 subscribers. Must be a lot of
lurkers.

Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

news gateways

[bruce]

Chris says that all of the mailing lists are gatewayed one-way only,
and there is no mention of the list address in the headers. Thus, he thinks
that the people who are finding our list by mistake are doing it through
some other means. Does this mean that they are finding it through our own
WWW archives of the mailing lists? Do we need to add something there to
keep them from being indexed?

Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: Debian-devel subscriber count

[Thomas Lakofski]

Here's one lurker sticking his head up for a second.  I lurk so I get some
picture of what's happening on the hamm front, beyond what I get on
debian-user.  I don't post because I don't develop (yet ;).

TL

On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
> Date: 13 Dec 1997 20:38:31 -
> Subject: Debian-devel subscriber count
> 
> Goodness gracious. Debian-devel has >400 subscribers. Must be a lot of
> lurkers.
> 
>   Bruce


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

RAS on an NT box.

[Dale Scheetz]

I need to connect a Linux box to an NT server over a dial-up line. The NT
box uses a "Remote Access Server". I remember seeing a discussion of this
recently, but can't find the reference in my mail archives. Can anyone
clue me in as to what package/howto I need to look at to deal with this?

TIA,

Dwarf
-- 
_-_-_-_-_-_-   Author of "The Debian User's Guide"_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

aka   Dale Scheetz   Phone:   1 (904) 656-9769
  Flexible Software  11000 McCrackin Road
  e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tallahassee, FL  32308

_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: unstripped stuff in /usr/lib

[Christian Schwarz]

On Wed, 10 Dec 1997, Adrian Bridgett wrote:

> There is quite a lot of unstripped libraries/object files in /usr/lib, is
> this against policy?

Policy, section `3.3.2 Libraries' says that all shared libraries have to
be stripped (unless they are part of a debugging package).

I'm not sure if we should treat static libraries the same way, since some
people might need the symbols for debugging. Could someone comment on
that?


Thanks,

Chris

--  Christian Schwarz
 [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian has a logo![EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Check out the logo PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
pages at  http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/debian-logo/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Policy for bo-unstable uploads

[Christian Schwarz]

Hi folks!

According to recent discussions here on debian-devel, some people still
fear that the "bo-unstable" directory (to be created in the next few days) 
will produce more work for the maintainers and we should concentrate on
"hamm". However, the opposite is true: A lot of maintainers (and users) 
spend a lot of time to recompile "hamm"  packages for their own "bo" 
systems. Since we currently have no official place to upload these
packages, the same piece of work is done over and over again by different
people. By providing an upload place for these packages, the work will
actually reduce for some of us.

We already have a executive decision to create the bo-unstable
directory and I don't see a reason for delaying this any
longer. (Otherwise, it will be too late since "hamm" might be released
some day.)

Guy, please create the directory on master now.

I think we should discuss the policy for the new directory here. I suggest
to place this into some "README" file in the bo-unstable directory once it
has been approved. Here is a proposal for such a policy. Any comments
are welcome!


Thanks,

Chris


  ---cut-here---

The bo-unstable directory stores packages which are taken from the
current unstable distribution (aka hamm) but compiled to work with
Debian 1.3.1 (aka bo). This has become necessary since "hamm" uses a
different version of the "libc" so partial upgrades from "bo" to
"unstable" are nearly impossible.

The packages in bo-unstable are provided as extra service for our
users who need newer versions of some packages or who want to help
testing newer packages (but don't have a possibility to run a full
"unstable" system).

  *
  * WARNING!  The packages in bo-unstable are even more   *
  * unstable than the packages in "unstable", since   *
  * they are not used by that many people.*
  *   *
  * The Debian developers do not make any attempts*
  * to test these packages!  USE AT YOUR OWN RISK!*
  *

Every Debian maintainer is free to upload bo-unstable versions of his
packages, but noone is forced to do so. Thus, maintainers are free to
ignore and close any bug reports against bo-unstable versions of their
packages without further comments.

Debian maintainers may also release bo-unstable versions of someone
else's packages after following the usual procedure for interim
releases, that is, contacting the maintainer or the debian-devel
mailing list about the intention to release a bo-unstable package and
waiting for an acknowledgement.

It is important that bo-unstable packages use version numbers that are
different from "bo" and "hamm" packages. In addition, upgrades from
"bo" to "bo-unstable" and "bo-unstable" to "hamm" should be possible
at any time. Therefore, the following versioning scheme has to be used
for bo-unstable packages:

   bo-unstable   hamm
last bo package1.2-4 ---
old package1.2-4bo5  1.2-5
new package1.2-4bo6  1.2-6
newer package  1.2-4bo7  1.2-7
non-maintainer 1.2-4bo7.11.2-7.1

new package1.3-0bo1  1.3-1
newer package  1.3-0bo2  1.3-2
non-maintainer 1.3-0bo2.11.3-2.1

That is, bo-unstable version numbers use the revision of the latest
package in "bo", concatenated with "bo" and the Debian revision of the
corresponding package in "hamm". In case of a new upstream version in
"hamm", the version number is taken from the new "hamm" version with
Debian revision 0, concatenated with "bo" and the Debian revision of
the "hamm" package. (I hope everyone can follow :-)
  
  ---cut-here---

-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian GNU/Linux?[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
Visit  PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org   http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: unstripped stuff in /usr/lib

[James Troup]

Christian Schwarz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I'm not sure if we should treat static libraries the same way, since
> some people might need the symbols for debugging. Could someone
> comment on that?

Static libraries should be stripped with --strip-debug.  If you want
stuff with debug symbols put it in a libfoo-dbg.

-- 
James


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: news gateways

[Christian Schwarz]

On 13 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Chris says that all of the mailing lists are gatewayed one-way only,
> and there is no mention of the list address in the headers. Thus, he thinks
> that the people who are finding our list by mistake are doing it through
> some other means. Does this mean that they are finding it through our own
> WWW archives of the mailing lists? Do we need to add something there to
> keep them from being indexed?

Does this mean we shouldn't include the list addresses ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) 
in our web pages? If so, I guess I have to fix some pages...


Thanks,

Chris

-- Christian Schwarz
Do you know [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Debian GNU/Linux?[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  
Visit  PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7  34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
http://www.debian.org   http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .

Re: fdisk3

[G John Lapeyre]

> > The interface works the same as fdisk
> 
> Um, no.  There is no interface.  sfdisk is driven completely by a
> config file describing the desired partition table.
> 
> Furthermore, it's already on your hard drive if you're running hamm.
> It's part of util-linux.

I was refering to fdisk3, which does have the same interface.
sfdisk may well be different.

G John Lapeyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tucson,AZ http://www.physics.arizona.edu/~lapeyre


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] . 
Trouble?  e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .