Re: dinstall and PGP

1998-04-15 Thread Adam Klein 
On Tue, Apr 14, 1998 at 12:34:43AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Apr 09, Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
>  >Those files are small. One can copy them back easily (using
>  > ftp, even), sign them locally, and upload two tiny files.
> That's not enough. After I signed the .changes and .dsc files (and moved
> back the other files from REJECT/) I received that from dinstall:
> 
> Rejected: md5sum failed
> md5sum: MD5 check failed for 'binkd_0.9.2-3.dsc'
> 
> Looks like I have to sign the .dsc, generate the new md5 hash with md5sum,
> manually edit the .changes file and sign it.

I've got a little shell script I use that seems to work okay.  I can
send it to you if you'd like.

Adam Klein


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: another look at release-critical bugs: lpr

1998-06-12 Thread Adam Klein 
On Fri, Jun 12, 1998 at 12:56:42PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> On Wed 03 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 1998, Jay Wardle wrote:
> > 
> > > [...Raul wrote...]
> > > > If this can't be fixed easily, perhaps we ought to promote lprng to
> > > > standard and demote lpr to optional. Yes, I know that bug-for-bug
> > > > compatability is a nice thing, but in my experience lprng is superior to
> > > > lpr.
> 
> If you take a look at the bug report, you'll see that there's a
> workaround already in place for this bug, but the maintainer left the
> bug report intact because he wants to find a cleaner solution.
> 
> Hence this discussion of lpr <-> lprng is pretty much off-topic, and
> distracting to the point in question.
> 
> He probably should have changed the priority to wishlist, however.

I did change the severity to wishlist.

Adam Klein


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: p2c 1.20-2.4 is now lintian-compliant and in Incoming.

1998-06-20 Thread Adam Klein 
On Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 07:49:58PM -0700, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 1998 at 11:39:20AM -0300, Igor Grobman wrote:
> > Some time around  Thu, 18 Jun 1998 19:36:17 PDT, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> >  > I did *not* fix the old source format [...]
> > 
> > If it's the old source format, then is it still in hamm?  I think every 
> > other 
> > old-source format package is no longer in hamm.  I don't see why p2c would 
> > be 
> > the exception given that no one wants to maintain it anyway.  Unless, of 
> > course 
> > you mean something different by "old source format" than what I am thinking 
> > of 
> > (does it have a .dsc file?)
> 
> Hmmm, I haven't been a developer long enough to know just what you're
> talking about, but yes it does have a .dsc file. It seems the debian/rules
> file predates debstd though.
> 
> Can someone who *does* know exactly what 'old source format' means look at
> and possibly close bug #9514?

I just checked, and it's no longer in old source format.
Someone should close #9514.

Adam Klein


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: libc6_2.0.7 release notes...

1998-06-22 Thread Adam Klein 
On Mon, Jun 22, 1998 at 11:14:54AM -0400, Dale Scheetz wrote:
[snip]
> > Being aesthetically opposed to epochs to the degree that you're
> > willing to force the user to upgrade manually seems unsupportable to
> > me.
> 
> Policy says I should not use epochs to resolve prelease numbering
> problems. (So what good is this thing anyway?)

I've always read that section to mean that you shouldn't use pre-release
numbering to begin with.

Adam Klein


--  
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Reality check!

1999-01-25 Thread Adam Klein 
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 04:17:16PM -0500, Steve Dunham wrote:
> "M.C. Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I would see this as a RH-style - so a rather bloated kernel which includes
> > lots of stuff as standard, and asks them the pertinent questions all at
> > once at the beginning, and then gets on with it.
> 
> Excuse me, but RedHat actually boots on my laptop because the kernel
> is _less_ bloated than Debian's kernel. Debian's install disk doesn't
> boot.  Red Hat uses a zImage kernel, Debian uses bzImage because it's
> too big for zImage.

IIRC, for slink, the default kernel is a zImage.

Intent to package wterm

1999-01-27 Thread Adam Klein 
wterm is another Rxvt hack.  It is designed for use with Window Maker,
although it will work fine with any window manager.  It includes transparency,
N*XTStep-like scroll bars, and colored shading.  It is smaller and faster
than Eterm.  You can find it at .

Adam


pgp3TzNAhroaA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Intent to package wterm

1999-01-27 Thread Adam Klein 
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 08:17:39AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 01:06:34AM -0800, Adam Klein wrote:
> 
> > wterm is another Rxvt hack.  It is designed for use with Window Maker,
> > although it will work fine with any window manager. It includes
> > transparency, N*XTStep-like scroll bars, and colored shading.
> 
>  Yes!!! Someone bit!!! 
> 
>  A word of caution Adam: PLEASE check out the diff for rxvt.  You'll find
>  that:
> 
>  a) There are lots of patches
> 
>  b) Not every patch has been incorporated to upstream rxvt source (read the
> colourful comments on the debianized source)

Hmm?  I got the source from the Largo's site, and it's not distributed as
a patch, but a full source tree.  Have these patches been included
upstream?  I'm packaging anonymous coder's version, rather than Alfredo.

>  c) Debian's version of rxvt and upstream's new version don't like each
> other AT ALL from the patch POV.

Debian's version is pretty old.  It's based on the last "stable" version,
but it's been extensively patched.

Adam

Re: Intent to package wterm

1999-01-27 Thread Adam Klein 
On Wed, Jan 27, 1999 at 11:05:43AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> I mean the debian patches. Some of them are incorporated upstream, some are
> not.

Oh, fro the rxvt package?  hmm.  Do I need to incorporate those?

Adam

Re: dinstall can now announce packages & close bugs for you

1999-01-31 Thread Adam Klein 
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 06:10:11AM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> dinstall, the software which installs packages into the hierarchy, can
> now announce packages and close bugs for you.

Hmm, is it really a good thing to have dinstall announce the uploads?  I
often depend on the announcements to alert me to new versions in Incoming.
In the new setup, the announcements won't come until the package is
installed, which in some cases can be several weeks.

Adam

Anyone have a slink box I could use?

1999-01-31 Thread Adam Klein 
I need to make a new frozen release of wmakerconf, but my system is potato
all the way.  Does anyone have a computer I could compile this on?

Adam

Bug#34579: Removing ncsa from the dist?

1999-05-16 Thread Adam Klein 
> reply to bug in which ncsa exits with an error on startup

(sorry it's been so long. this bug got lost in the shuffle somewhere)
Apparently, this problem can be fixed by specifying a group
to run as in /etc/ncsa/httpd.conf.  However, ncsa doesn't
seem to actually _run_ as that user/group.  Really, I'd like
to remove ncsa from the distribution.  It's old, outdated,
probably insecure, and boa is just as small, fast, and has
a very similar configuration style.

Adam

Putting distributed-net back up for adoption

1999-05-17 Thread Adam Klein 
When Joey Hess decided to get rid of all his non-free packages, I snapped
up distributed-net, but I was a bit too hasty.  It has a rather large
number of bugs filed against it, and it's been exhibiting some weird
behavior (apparently caused by the glibc2.1 move).  And being a binary-only
package, it's a bit hard to debug.  So, I'm putting it back up for adoption.

adam
-- 
no joy killed a yam

Re: Putting distributed-net back up for adoption

1999-05-18 Thread Adam Klein 
On Mon, May 17, 1999 at 05:41:01PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Adam Klein wrote:
> > number of bugs filed against it, and it's been exhibiting some weird
> > behavior (apparently caused by the glibc2.1 move).
> 
> Really? That's odd since it is a statically linked binary. I don't see how
> libc could affect it.

hmm...that's right...I wonder what caused the problem, then.  (the problem
is that distributed-net forks an extra process, and kills the original,
thus making the pid file unusable)

-- 
a jolly daemon kin

Intent to orphan ncsa

1999-05-18 Thread Adam Klein 
The subject pretty much says it all.  It's got a weird thing with glibc2.1
where the group must be set in the config file, and it doesn't seem
to set[ug]id correctly.

adam
-- 
a jolly daemon kin

Re: Metapackages (was Re: Debian Weekly News - September 14th, 1999)

1999-09-16 Thread Adam Klein 
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 10:52:31PM +, David Coe wrote:
> Germano Leichsenring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > By the way, am I the only one grepping the "available" file??
> 
> No, and (for those of you who don't already know), there are
> two nice packages that make doing so even easier and more useful:
> 
> *grep-dctrl* allows you to extract entire package chunks with a 
> grep-like syntax.
> 
> *sgrep* allows you to do arbitrarily complicated extracts (also
> from other "structured" text files).

I also find apt 0.3.11's "apt-cache search" to be quite useful (and fast).

Adam
-- 
a jolly daemon kin