Re: Status of inetd for etch
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:21:22 +0200, Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >The suggestion to use "nodaemon" as default for exim4 when only handling local >mail will probably be rejected? Of course. You won't get any queue runs and thus mail that cannot be delivered right away will stay forever on your queue. exim4's SMTP listener does only listen on 127.0.0.1 by default. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
ICU 3.6 beta in experimental
I have uploaded a beta release of ICU (International Components for Unicode) 3.6 to experimental. Version 3.4 is currently in unstable and testing. If you use ICU, please try testing with 3.6 beta by developing with libicu36-dev instead of libicu34-dev. If ICU 3.6 comes out in time, I'm hoping (if the release team approves) to be able to get ICU 3.6 into etch. Thanks. -- Jay Berkenbilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> pgpKKTltMsuan.pgp Description: PGP signature
mass bugfiling: dbconfig-common-using packages violating policy 7.2
hey d-d, it was recently brought to my attention that the documented method for using the dbconfig-common hooks in a maintainer's postrm script was non-compliant wrt policy 7.2. policy stipulates that packages can not require use of programs from any non-essential packages in the postrm/purge phase. unfortunately, the example packages used as guidelines didn't make any checks to safeguard this, so i suspect most/all of the packages using dbconfig-common do not either. since these are rc-bugs, i don't think the lintian route is the correct path and plan to file the bugs in the next few days. fwiw, below are the affected package(r)s according to grep-aptavail/dd-list. sean Cameron Dale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> torrentflux David Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> acidbase phpgacl John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bacula Debian Nagios Maintainer Group <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> nagios Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> serendipity Debian DSPAM Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> dspam Zabbix Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> zabbix Miguel Gea Milvaques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> mydms Tim Peeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> webcalendar Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> jffnms Radu Spineanu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> simba Alexis Sukrieh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> bugzilla OndÅej Surý <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> postfix-policyd Torsten Werner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> otrs2 sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cacti cacti-cactid Debian Tikiwiki team <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tikiwiki -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: using long long and printf("%m") in debian
On 18-Aug-06, 16:48 (CDT), Hendrik Sattler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> No, %m is, according to printf(2) manpage:
> m (Glibc extension.) Print output of strerror(errno). No argument is
> required.
>
> So why isn't
> printf("%s\n",strerror(errno));
> used instead of
> printf("%m\n");
> ?
> Not like a problem in Debian GNU/* but you should tell upstream about
> questionable coding style and portability.
The "%m" idiom is pretty widespread, actually, and not only a Glibc
extension. But the "strerror(errno)" form is definitely superior for
portability.
Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#383798: ITP: luacurl -- libcURL bindings for the lua language
Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Enrico Tassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: luacurl Version : 0.2.0 Upstream Author : Enrico Tassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-lua/home/gares/luacurl-0.2.0/?rev=0&sc=0 * License : GPL or MIT/X Programming Lang: C, lua Description : libcURL bindings for the lua language A tentative package can be found in the following svn repository: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-lua/packages/luacurl/?rev=0&sc=0 -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-1-k7 Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) -- Enrico Tassi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: mass bugfiling: dbconfig-common-using packages violating policy 7.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 sean finney wrote: > hey d-d, > > it was recently brought to my attention that the documented method > for using the dbconfig-common hooks in a maintainer's postrm script > was non-compliant wrt policy 7.2. policy stipulates that packages > can not require use of programs from any non-essential packages > in the postrm/purge phase. > > unfortunately, the example packages used as guidelines didn't > make any checks to safeguard this, so i suspect most/all of > the packages using dbconfig-common do not either. since these > are rc-bugs, i don't think the lintian route is the correct path and > plan to file the bugs in the next few days. > ... > Miguel Gea Milvaques <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >mydms I've uploaded a new version with this issue corrected. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE53NANTNQylgICMQRAks4AJ9tCw1jIMWFSKHDwsjoxw24oJ3XhgCgjJ0y SGWfYLoWVetB8tQ4FzySEKI= =MZyp -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Dbconfig-common-devel] mass bugfiling: dbconfig-common-using packages violating policy 7.2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 hi sean, On Sat, Aug 19, 2006 at 10:54:06AM -0400, sean finney wrote: > unfortunately, the example packages used as guidelines didn't > make any checks to safeguard this, so i suspect most/all of > the packages using dbconfig-common do not either. since these > are rc-bugs, i don't think the lintian route is the correct path and > plan to file the bugs in the next few days. > > Zabbix Maintainers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >zabbix i just uploaded zabbix 1.1.1-6, which checks for dbconfig-common to be installed during postrm. bye, - michael -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFE542zEFV7g4B8rCURAlYkAJ91+4fLf1hzJy5w+9hwzkT7FG11OwCeJcS4 +1MC4zdUOu3rhLGv9Dij9Ao= =+kBg -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: apache2.2 uploaded to experimental
[Thom May] > This version is not yet ready for unstable, and hence also not for > etch, because it requires more testing. All maintainers of apache > modules are encouraged to test their modules against apache2.2 from > experimental, and upload tested modules to experimental. In the same vein, we've just uploaded subversion 1.4.0~rc4-2 to experimental (see 'incoming'). We hope to have 1.4.0 in etch; it's not a revolutionary change from 1.2.x/1.3.x, but even so, of course, some testing would be appreciated. (This release is tied to apache 2.2, but we can return to 2.0 if need be.) The code itself seems quite solid to me, but I do need to note that it's still a release candidate. Also, PLEASE DO read /usr/share/doc/libsvn1/NEWS.Debian.gz, regarding upgrades and downgrades. Thanks, Peter, for the Debian Subversion team signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [Dbconfig-common-devel] mass bugfiling: dbconfig-common-using packages violating policy 7.2
Hi Sean, 2006/8/19, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: unfortunately, the example packages used as guidelines didn't make any checks to safeguard this, so i suspect most/all of the packages using dbconfig-common do not either. since these are rc-bugs, i don't think the lintian route is the correct path and plan to file the bugs in the next few days. I will fix that with the next upload. Cheers, Torsten -- http://www.twerner42.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
