Perhaps those with experience can help me with this...
I am in the process of packaging up x3270 for debian, and while I have built
X-stuff via imake before, I have never had to modify things.
Until now.
Is there an easy way of modifying the (i)makefiles to install the software in
a non-root s
FYI
If this has been covered already ignore me I am behind on mail again.. :)
Matt
=
CA-95:14 CERT Advisory
November 1, 1995
Telnetd Environm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> [empty shell fields in /etc/passwd mean /bin/sh]
This is common practice, and perhaps important if you are using
a Yellow Pages password database that originates on a different
system. Use "/dev/null" as the shell if you want to disable the login.
Thanks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> add Filename: field in Packages-Master
Ian,
I think the script that generates the Packages and Packages-Master files has
all of the information it needs to add a "Filename:" field to the database,
probably with no more than a one-line modification. The filename should b
Package: ppp, source
The updated kernel source gets the ppp specific header from
/usr/include/linux, e.g:
The ppp source package expects these to live in /usr/include/net
So pppd can't be recompiled from the source.
What is the right location?
(And as an aside, the copyright still mentions p
Package: ?
I recently created a special-purpose entry in /etc/passwd, with an
empty shell field. I was surprised to see that `finger' reported the
shell as `/bin/sh', and tried using `su' from a root shell to su to
the account. Sure enough, I got a shell.
This seems wrong to me, particularly in
> Package: igerman, wgerman
> Running Ispell with the supplied german.hash gives the error message:
> Illegal format hash table /usr/lib/ispell/german.hash - \
> expected magic2 0x9602, got 0x0
> Rebuilding german.hash with buildhash succeeds but gives error messages
> on all words containing
> Brian & I (erick) had some discussion on ftp installation with dpkg and
> we came up with two options. One of them is in my opinion the best and
> the other one is the option Brian suggested (and thinks is the best).
>
> Brian suggests to add a Filename: field in Packages-Master
> Erick suggests
> Yup, I'm here (but I don't necessarily read debian-devel very closely).
> We are about to embark (well, sometime in the next few months) on the
> design for RPM 2.0. Would it make sense for us to set up a mailing
> list for package issues? (we've been thinking about setting up an
> [EMAIL PROTE
Ian Jackson said:
> Supposing I don't trust anything. How am I to examine the source
> package ? For example, I might like to unpack it and do a diff
> against a source tree I have checked more thoroughly.
> [...]
> If I have a packaging format that I can extract using a standard tool
> that I k
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] reads debian-devel . He's made noises about working
> together before.
Yup, I'm here (but I don't necessarily read debian-devel very closely).
We are about to embark (well, sometime in the next few months) on the
design for RPM 2.0. Would it make sense for us to set up a maili
Package: igerman, wgerman
Running Ispell with the supplied german.hash gives the error message:
Illegal format hash table /usr/lib/ispell/german.hash - \
expected magic2 0x9602, got 0x0
Rebuilding german.hash with buildhash succeeds but gives error messages
on all words containing umlauts.
If the libc maintainer includes a gdbm man page, please let me know.
Currently, elf-libgdbm installs one.
Ray
--
LOGIC The principle governing human intellection. Its nature may be deduced
from examining the two following propositions, both of which are held by
human beings to be true and often b
I close this bug with the new latex2rtf-1.1-1 which is correct.
--
Erick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31-10-4635142
Department of General Surgery (Intensive Care) University Hospital Rotterdam NL
This is sort of long. Don't bother unless you care about what /usr's contents
look like, and/or you're desperate for reading material...
I've alluded in the past to my intention to package for Debian the cross
development tools we're using for AMD 29200 embedded systems development. I
care about
Would it be possible to let package files have the name which is built from
the fields: package version and revision/package_revision. This is the case
with 98 % of the packages I think but not all of them. I thought it is
in the Guidelines somewhere.
--.deb
--
Erick [EMAIL PROTECTED] +31-10-46351
16 matches
Mail list logo
