first package

hi, today i tried to build my first debian package but run immidiatly in an error. i did (nearly ;-) everything as told by the script 'making a debian package' but after the command build i got the messages: no utmp entry available, using value of LOGNAME ("mdt") at /usr/lib/dpkg/controll

Re: Linuxconf

At 07:40 -0700 1998-06-02, Craig Sanders wrote: >BTW, the fact that you don't understand sendmail doesn't prevent others >from doing so. sendmail really isn't that difficult, and is simpler in >some ways because you don't have multiple config files scattered across >multiple directories. FUD, exim

Re: Debian development modem

At 23:57 -0700 1998-06-01, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > I strongly object to churning out junk CD's every month. If Think "developmental snapshots" ala FreeBSD. Though those are quarterly instead of monthly. -- Joel "Espy" Klecker Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Intent to fix base-passwd

Hi, while testing the base packages I hit the critical bugs surrounding the update-passwd binary contained in base-passwd. I want to introduce a -n flag to update-passwd which prints out the proposed changes to /etc/passwd and /etc/group without actually executing them (debug mode). I try to tak

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:32:53PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Jules> The solution is to switch to a better designed mailer (exim > Jules> springs to mind) with easier to manage configuration. > > This seems to imply that linuxconfig should drop support for > sendmail (which still is

Re: Tools the Parse config files (was Re: Linuxconf)

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:46:02PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Shaya> Also, linuxconf shouldn't be used to configure a user's > Shaya> personal information, such as .bashrc, .pinerc, those should > Shaya> be left to either the program itself like in pine, or to a > Shaya> package like the

Re: Linuxconf

Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > BTW, the fact that you don't understand sendmail doesn't prevent others > from doing so. The problem with sendmail isn't that it's difficult to understand, it's that it rewrites headers, by default. This introduces a whole class of rather subtle bugs tha

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 03:59:22PM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > > yes, that's a perfect solution.for those who choose to use exim. it > > does absolutely nothing at all for those who prefer to use sendmail. > > True. But I was answering the suggestion (chopped, unfortunately, which > was fooli

Debian 2.0 installation report.

Hi, I installed Debian 2.0 using installation disks 2.0.6 on Gateway2000 computer (P2-166). First of thanks for the nice job in organising installations disks! Everything went very smoothly, I did not have any major problems. Well, I failed once when I did not realise that one should use ha

Re: Differences of Debian vs. the Other Guys

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Javier Fernandez-Sanguino Pen~a wrote: > > What are the main differences/advantages/disadvantages of > Debian's Packaging System vs The Other Guys (tm) ? > > I would appreciate any help in sorting these out (I already have So would we ! John Lapeyre <[E

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

> > A new mirror_2.9-1 is now on master. The copyright has changed (see below), > and should be fine with us. Or is the 'changes must be distributed as > patches' policy too restrictive for us? > > So here's the copyright: > > >Copyright _ 1990 - 1998 Lee McLoughlin > >Permission to us

Re: Documentation Freeness (Re: Packages to be removed from hamm)

Hello! On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 09:19:11PM +0200, joost witteveen wrote: > > > The document authors already can enforce a lot of things, keeping the > > document free: > > > [...] > > I want to hear valid reasons why this is not enough before I even think > > about non-free documents in main! >

Re: Documentation Freeness (Re: Packages to be removed from hamm)

> 1) The document must be free but may require a change in the title for a > modified version (for example "FSSTND" would become "Debians implementation > of the FSSTND" or something without the acronym FSSTND at all). > > 2) Many authors don't want their work to be published out of their control

Re: Differences of Debian vs. the Other Guys

Hi, Well, there are a number of things, but the following are important (in no particular order) 1) strong dependency tracking. Espescially with APT, the next generation replacement for dselect, packages are unpacked in an order that minimizes the time for which a package is una

Re: Can w3-el be precompiled?

[ QP brain-damage reversed ] "Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, May 28, 1998 at 01:12:25AM -0400, Gregory S. Stark wrote: > > Oh, one gotcha to watch for. If you package Custom you really > > ought to package Gnus as well and build it against the same > > version of Custo

Re: Hamm for other architectures

Brandon Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Now about that hard one, what are we releasing this time[?] m68k is certainly going to if I have anything to say about it. -- James ~Yawn And Walk North~ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Cont

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

Hi, > This new release is fresh code, and I won't pull out all the patches > we applied against mirror_2.8. Let me know if there is a feature in > 2.8 that you really miss. I could make a 'retro' package mirror28 of > the old release. The changelog for mirror 2.8-15 included: * Applied p

Re: Tools the Parse config files (was Re: Linuxconf)

Hi, >>"Shaya" == Shaya Potter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Shaya> Also, linuxconf shouldn't be used to configure a user's Shaya> personal information, such as .bashrc, .pinerc, those should Shaya> be left to either the program itself like in pine, or to a Shaya> package like the dotfile generat

Re: Hamm for other architectures

Bdale Garbee ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote on 1 June 1998 16:22: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >: Are we releasing hamm for any other architectures? I've has a few request >: from new testers. Also who should they contact on architecture specific >: problems? I've installed an alpha

Re: Linuxconf

On 2 Jun 1998, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Jules> This sounds foolish to me. > > Hmm, provocative words. > > Jules> The solution is to switch to a better designed mailer (exim > Jules> springs to mind) with easier to manage co

Re: Linuxconf

Hi, >>"Jules" == Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Jules> This sounds foolish to me. Hmm, provocative words. Jules> The solution is to switch to a better designed mailer (exim Jules> springs to mind) with easier to manage configuration. This seems to imply that linuxconf

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 04:27:48PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > Does this mean the modified-for-Debian "mirror" may not be distributed > inside the .deb binary package? Isn't that distributing modified bynaries? I mean, you are not distributing the .orig.tar.gz, but something different (with add

Re: Linuxconf

At 12:36 AM 6/3/98 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: >On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > >> Of course it's viable. It just becomes a package maintainer >> responsibility. In the vast majority of cases, the package maintainer >> ought to be able to use the *same code* as the package itself for >> p

Re: On adding size info to Packages files [very long]

Hi, >>"Charles" == Charles Briscoe-Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Charles> Manoj Srivastava writes: Charles> $ gzip -l Sizes.hamm.*.gz Charles> compressed uncompr. ratio uncompressed_name Charles> 105201795450 86.7% Sizes.hamm.contrib Charles> 66294402982 83.5% S

Re: How to fix a broken postrm in upcoming releases

On Fri, May 15, 1998 at 02:20:45PM +0100, I wrote: > I posted some skeleton p{re,ost}{inst,rm} scripts to debian-mentors (or > was it debian-doc?) a few weeks ago; I'll post them again if you like. > I think they do a pretty good job of outlining all the possibilities you > can code for, but in a m

Re: On adding size info to Packages files [very long]

Manoj Srivastava writes: >I think we should look at the possibility of not including the > information in either the Packages file nor the available file. The > Du files hsould be separately kept on the archives, and they maybe > compressed with gzip (bzip2?); and downloaded and kept in > /

Re: On adding size info to Packages files [very long]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Brederlow writes: > >Would that already be a correct Packages file or would dpkg and >similar scream about wrong entries? Could old dpkg's handle the new >entries? It seems to work for me. Any entries that are not recognised are ignored or passed through unchanged.

Re: Move -dev files to libs?

On Sun 31 May 1998, Guy Maor wrote: > Would anybody object if I moved -dev files and associated > documentation to the libs section? The dev section is by far the > largest section and this would help reduce its size. I think doc is about the same size as devel, if you take binary-all into accou

Re: Hamm for other architectures

On Mon 01 Jun 1998, Brandon Mitchell wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > > : Are we releasing hamm for any other architectures? I've has a few request > > : from new testers. Also who should they contact on architecture specific > > : problems? > > > > The debian- mailing lists

Re: Linuxconf

On Wed, 3 Jun 1998, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > > > > The solution of course is to extend the m4 stuff to support all the > > > things linuxconf does, but that's not so easy. Also, note that > > > slackware didn't at last look have m4 sendmailconfig. Another >

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: > > RE: sendmail.cf > > > > IMO, linuxconf should manage sendmail.mc rather than sendmail.cf. > > That would be more reasonable, however not all that sendmail can do is > supported with the m4 rules and such. Not at the moment at least. anything y

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > > The solution of course is to extend the m4 stuff to support all the > > things linuxconf does, but that's not so easy. Also, note that > > slackware didn't at last look have m4 sendmailconfig. Another > > example of where slackware is doing more harm tha

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > >> So support the full grammar of the file. > > > > debian currently has 1956 packages. most of them require a config file. > > do you think having that many individual parsers is viable? > > Ooh.. debian has 1956 packages. Do you think having that many p

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to >distribute the modified code. Modifications are to be distributed as >patches to released version. Mmm, wait a moment... Does this mea

HELP! Need dhcp-1.0.0-3!!!

Hello all, I have just installed dhcp-1.0.1-1 (replacing dhcp-1.0.0-3) and now all my clients are unable to renew their leases. I deleted the old dhcp-1.0.0-3 in my local mirror so I am unable to downgrade. Does anyone keep an old package around that can send to me or put for FTP somewhere? Thank

Linuxconf not losing info.

Sorry for not responding directly, I only get debian-devel-digest, so I can only respond to what I catch. I believe linuxconf will version every change that it makes, i.e. if you make changes w/ linuxconf and see that it didn't work, you can go back to your previous configuration or any one of man

Tools the Parse config files (was Re: Linuxconf)

Ok, I see their has been a lot of talk on if the way linuxconf does its thing is good for debian. first things first, a user doesn't have to use linuxconf. If a user wants to edit the file by hand they can use the existing tools that we have. Even those aren't perfect, if I edit my sendmail.cf b

Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem

On Sat, 30 May 1998, Bdale Garbee wrote: > I had an interesting chat with one of my cohorts at work today about > this topic. We spent some time thinking about the various Debian > users we know, and tried to characterize what they want from the > distribution. What we came up with was the notio

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

Santiago> BTW: Will this new mirror be in hamm? [ Maybe it should ]. It is a new upstream version which is incompatible with the deep freeze. We should test it thoroughly first. Hence the quick upload yesterday. -- mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] According to the latest official figure

Differences of Debian vs. the Other Guys

I'm currently writting an article for "Linux Actual" (an spanish magazine on Linux) about the Debian Packaging System (more on the .deb format than other policies) and I would like to make the BIG question, considering there is a lot of discussion about LSB. start big question ---

Re: so what? Re: Debian development modem

On Fri, 29 May 1998, Philip Hands wrote: > > Sorry, now I don't understand. I think we should release twice a year. > > What about encouraging people to press ``Debian Unstable Snapshots'' > once every couple of months. > > We could do the snapshot images ourselves (so that everyone's ``May > 98'

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am interested in something way more fundamental to the project than > the mere next release. Unless we thing beyond the next quarter, and > if we fail to make more or less radical changes, we are doomed to > repeat the pattern of past releases. Y

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 11:14:45AM +0100, Jules Bean wrote: > > The solution of course is to extend the m4 stuff to support all the things > > linuxconf does, but that's not so easy. Also, note that slackware didn't at > > last look have m4 sendmailconfig. Another example of where slackware is >

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: > > IMO, linuxconf should manage sendmail.mc rather than sendmail.cf. > > That would be more reasonable, however not all that sendmail can do is > supported with the m4 rules and such. Not at the moment at least. Sendmail > is their selling point be

Re: Linuxconf

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 05:24:10PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > > if a program edits it too, it should do it in a way which does > > > not interfere at all with that human's right to put whatever s/he > > > desires in the file. if it can not guarantee that 100% then it > > > should not edit the

Re: [suhler@hack.Eng.Sun.COM: Re: Copyright??]

--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 10:54 am +0200 "Michael Bramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > I am the maintainer from ts, the TeX-Shell. > Jens Poenisch (the upstream author) have make a new version and > move the copyright to GPL. :-) > But he use a html-library from Stephen Uhler, and he have

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 9:35 am +0100 "Enrique Zanardi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also due to the big number of developers and "sub-projects" inside of > the Debian project, it's hard to follow how every sub-project is going on > (what's going on with apt/dpkg/boot-floppies/i18n/consistent-keybo

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > A new mirror_2.9-1 is now on master. The copyright has changed (see below), > and should be fine with us. Or is the 'changes must be distributed as > patches' policy too restrictive for us? It is allowed, as an "ex

[suhler@hack.Eng.Sun.COM: Re: Copyright??]

Hello I am the maintainer from ts, the TeX-Shell. Jens Poenisch (the upstream author) have make a new version and move the copyright to GPL. :-) But he use a html-library from Stephen Uhler, and he have not put the copyright for this library in his tar.gz. So, I wrote a mail to Stephen. Is this

Re: Debian Re-organization proposals (was: Re: so what?)

On Tue, Jun 02, 1998 at 12:35:35AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The formal SPR's are also a good way of documenting proposals, > I think that we should archive formal SPR's, and all the amendments > accepted, etc, so we do not ``forget'' the lofty goals in a few > months. Also due to

Re: Linuxconf

--On Tue, Jun 2, 1998 11:18 am +1000 "Craig Sanders" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > >> > > The proper solution would be to fix the parser. >> > >> > unfortunately, this means placing arbitrary restrictions on the >> > config filesanything which hasn't b