Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activity monitor
People have been complaining about not having child-safe images, so I've made some (attached). The images fade from solid green to solid red, pretty harmless. The images attached to this email are public domain and are provided as-is. -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$ UB+++>$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K- w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-) b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e-> h* r? z* --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- David Mandelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] hb01.tar.bz2 Description: Binary data signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#283578: ITP: hot-babe -- erotic graphical system activitymonitor
Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 22:24 +1300, Philip Charles wrote: > >>On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, Ron Johnson wrote: >> >> >>>On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 02:18 +0100, Robert Millan wrote: >>> >>>>On Tue, Dec 07, 2004 at 01:06:11PM +0900, Clemens Schwaighofer wrote: >>>> >>>>>>True, the Koran just invites to kill your ennemy bloodily, that's very >>>>>>different... >>>>> >>>>>Thats wrong, thats just an interpretion. >>>> >>>>I wonder how could text be written such that the question wether it invites >>>>to kill someone bloodily is open to interpretation. >>> >>>Are there other places in the Koran that say different things? >>> >>>An example from the Bible: the Old Testament says that homosexuals >>>must be stoned to death, >> >>Nonsence, people were to be stoned for many things, but homosexuality was >>not one of them. > > > You're right. It doesn't say "stoned". However, "they shall > surely be put to death", is, how shall we say, a superset of > "stoned to death". Therefore, I was close enough. > > Leviticus 20 > > 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, > both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely > be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. > That's not anti-homosexual, that's anti-bisexual. "as he lieth with a woman" implies that he has to lie with women the same way as with men for it to be applicable. -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$ UB+++>$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K- w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-) b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e-> h* r? z* --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- David Mandelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: what is /.udev for ?
GOMBAS Gabor wrote:
> ... which would mean that it would become unaccessible (and thus
> meaningless) as the real /var gets mounted later in the boot process.
> You cannot reliably put it under a directory that is not guaranteed to
> be on the root file system; that leaves roughly /, /etc, /bin, /lib and
> /sbin. Pick your favourite :-)
What about this:
TMPDEV="`mktemp -d /tmp/devXX || { mkdir /.dev; echo -n /.dev; }`"
mount -o bind /dev $TMPDEV
mount -t tmpfs none /dev
mkdir /dev/orig
mount -o bind $TMPDEV /dev/orig
umount $TMPDEV
rm -rf $TMPDEV
This way there's no clutter in / and the original dev is mounted in a valid
place that won't get overmounted later. It's also fhs compliant I think.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: what is /.udev for ?
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, David Mandelberg wrote:
>>TMPDEV="`mktemp -d /tmp/devXX || { mkdir /.dev; echo -n /.dev; }`"
>>mount -o bind /dev $TMPDEV
>>mount -t tmpfs none /dev
>>mkdir /dev/orig
>>mount -o bind $TMPDEV /dev/orig
>>umount $TMPDEV
>>rm -rf $TMPDEV
>
>
> Unless of course /tmp is mounted /tmpfs later.
That's why nothing is used in /tmp for very long, the $TMPDEV dir is unmounted.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Idea: about package installation under chroot.
Adeodato Simà wrote: > # test -r /proc/1/root || echo "Inside a chroot" What if an postinst script at some point drops privs to a non-root user and grsec is preventing it from reading any process' info other than its own user's? Also, as pointed out earlier this wouldn't work on HURD. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Right of a maintainer not to respect FHS
On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 11:53 +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote: > For invidual files > this is too much work though - it could work for directories. Why would it be hard with individual files? Just use a shell fragment like: FILES="foo bar baz" for i in $FILES do mv "$DESTDIR/usr/lib/$i" "$DESTDIR/usr/share/$i" ln -s "/usr/share/$i" "$DESTDIR/usr/lib/$i" done -- David Mandelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Bug#303307: ITP: freecycle -- a beat slicer
On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 23:47 +0100, Paul Brossier wrote: > * Package name: freecycle I'm not sure if it applies, but there's a US trademark on "freecycle"; see <http://www.freecycle.org/> -- David Mandelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Publicly available mbox archives of debian mailing lists + Bug#161440
On Fri, 2005-04-29 at 03:53 -0500, Bill Allombert wrote: > As far as spam harvester are concerned, they can just subscribe to the > mailing-lists to get the mail headers. I think if they subscribe to the mailing list and use it for abuse they can easily be banned, whereas they can't be banned from a public archive very easily. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > GNU version of OpenSSL (I don't recall how > it is called). GnuTLS I think. -- The attachment "signature.asc" (if it exists) is a digital signature. Unless you know what that is, you can completely ignore it. It is mostly harmless and very small. Tempt not a desperate man. -- William Shakespeare, "Romeo and Juliet" signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Urgently need GPL compatible libsnmp5-dev replacement :-(
On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 20:15 -0400, David Mandelberg wrote: > On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 19:40 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > GNU version of OpenSSL (I don't recall how > > it is called). > > GnuTLS I think. Stupid mail misconfiguration, I sent this before I got Christian Hammer's reply (actually almost immediately after I got Henrique's message). -- The attachment "signature.asc" (if it exists) is a digital signature. Unless you know what that is, you can completely ignore it. It is mostly harmless and very small. You will be given a post of trust and responsibility. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Bug#60810: contents.gz package
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I think the only sensible and simple thing to do is to provide a zsync > file for the Contents files (zsync can 'look into' gz to rsync just > the changes). Then every user can use a cron job to zsync the file to > his system on a daily, weekly, monthly, whatever basis. zsync uses the > http protocol so any http mirror carrying the Contents files will do > as source. What about creating a package to do this automatically (using debconf to ask how often to run)? It could be a really small package (just one shell script and docs) and lintian et al could depend/recommend/suggest it. -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$ UB+++>$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K- w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-) b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e->++++ h* r? z* --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- David Mandelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: (Bug #286255) ssmtp does not work authenticated
Simon Richter wrote: > There is also a tool called esmtp, which seems to be able to do > authentication, even with TLS, however it gets the authentication data > from the sending user's home directory and is more likely to be suited > for laptop installations only. I don't know about older versions, but 0.5.0-4 works fine with authentication from the esmtprc in /etc. It even asks debconf questions to set up auth. Also, if you want /usr/sbin/sendmail and mail-transport-agent with esmtp, you need to install esmtp-run. -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$ UB+++>$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K- w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-) b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e-> h* r? z* --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- David Mandelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Bug#291193: base-passwd: Users added in group audio, not seen though. No sound!
Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2005 at 12:50:24PM +0200, lasse.simpanen wrote:
>>Package: base-passwd
>>Severity: normal
>>
>>Users can not have sound. They are added in audio group, but asked
>>'group "user" ' they seem not to be in that group! They are in
>>/etc/group though.
>>Yes, they have logged out but no change.
>>
>>About a week ago all was fine, don't know what break the system,
>>(sysvinit and sysv-rc was upgraded, but I don't know...)
>>Only root can have the sound now.
Are you using ALSA or OSS? What are the permissions on
/dev/{dsp,audio,mixer,snd/}* ?
To find out, try
$ dpkg -l | grep -i '\(oss\|alsa\)'
$ uname -r
$ ls -lA /dev/{dsp,audio,mixer,snd/}*
If any of the devices I globbed above aren't owned by root:audio, chown them to
root:audio.
--
-BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-
Version: 3.1
GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$
UB+++>$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K-
w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-)
b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e-> h* r? z*
--END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
David Mandelberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: rudeness in general
Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 11:55 +1100, Sam Watkins wrote: > >>On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 04:17:14PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > [snip] > >>I ask people to please make a great effort to be polite and >>"professional" in representing Debian. Please don't tell newbies to go >>RTFM > > > Sure you should. > > I remember, though, when I was a newbie and didn't know which > manpage to read. So, I try to point which FM to read. You shouldn't say 'RTFM' though, 'this is already documented here: <...>, why don't you try reading that first?' might work better. >> or throw ESR's "smart-questions" FAQ at them, please don't get > > > The "smart-questions" FAQ was written for a reason. > > When someone asks a particularly general question and expects a > detailed answer, he needs to be sent to the FAQ. I think you're right here, but a short explanation would be nicer than just throwing the link at them. For example telling them what they did wrong and not just 'read this first: <...>'. -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.1 GAT/CM$/CS>$/CC/IT$/M/S/O/U dpu s+:++ !a C++$>C+++$ UB+++>++++$L$*-- P+>++$ L+++()$ E-(---) W+++>$ N(+) o? K- w--(---) O? M V? PS++@ PE-@ Y+@ PGP++(+++)>$ t? 5? X? R tv--(-) b++(+++)@ DI? D? G e-> h* r? z* --END GEEK CODE BLOCK-- David Mandelberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
