* Jerry Haltom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-10-04 20:24]:
> I've been doing some research into the current state of GPG signing
> official apt sources.
>
> I've found a few conversations on this mailing circa 2000-2001 about
> creating a Packages.gpg and a seperate update procedure for updating
#203
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:49:17AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:21:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I've just placed a new glibc package for experimental in incoming.
> > libc6-i686 is new, so it may be a few days before it shows up in the
> > archive. These packag
I've been doing some research into the current state of GPG signing
official apt sources.
I've found a few conversations on this mailing circa 2000-2001 about
creating a Packages.gpg and a seperate update procedure for updating
this file, and then verifying Packages.gz against it.
I cannot find a
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:49:17AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:21:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I've just placed a new glibc package for experimental in incoming.
> > libc6-i686 is new, so it may be a few days before it shows up in the
> > archive. These packag
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:21:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> I've just placed a new glibc package for experimental in incoming.
> libc6-i686 is new, so it may be a few days before it shows up in the
> archive. These packages should be considered _extremely experimental_, as
> neither the
On Sat, Oct 04, 2003 at 01:42:36PM -0400, Fabien Ninoles wrote:
> Although your proposition seems more complete, have you try
> debsums and checksecurity? debsums with the following
> feature in /etc/apt/apt.conf
>
> DPkg::Post-Invoke {
> "debsums --generate=nocheck -sp /var/cache/apt/arc
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 2) I was not suggesting very fine grained "modular" patch for each issues.
>I was expecting something like 3-4 stage patches.
>
>* 1st big patch: cramfs etc. which are essential to be Debian kernel
>* 2nd big patch: basic bug fixes. (No fe
Debian Open Use Logo License
Copyright (c) 1999 Software in the Public Interest
-This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone to refer to the
-Debian project, but does not indicate endorsement by the project.
+This logo or a modified version may be used by anyone, but does not
+indicate
Hi, thanks the good maintenance by Herbert,
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 08:12:43AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I'd really like to hear is a reaction from Herbert to:
> > Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Some of us would like to see Perl taken out of base as well :)
Marc writes:
> That would be an awfully nice thing to have.
But it would not be nice to not have the things that would leave with it.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmw
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 06:18:58PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Aptitude is nice power tool for dealing with 6000+ packages (or
> whatever it is now)
try twice that:
$ apt-cache search .\* | wc -l
12204
--
gram, who wonders if this could be getting out of hand
signature.asc
Description: Di
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:49:40 +0100, Scott James Remnant
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Some of us would like to see Perl taken out of base as well :)
That would be an awfully nice thing to have.
Greetings
Marc
--
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Ha
Kim Lester wrote:
Although debian packages may contain md5sums it seems package
verification is
not available (unless I have missed something).
Although your proposition seems more complete, have you try
debsums and checksecurity? debsums with the following
feature in /etc/apt/apt.conf
DPkg::Post
On 2003-10-03, Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I see. It's a lot simpler, from the point of view of maintainability,
> to have a single user's manual for both offline and online perusal.
>
> One nice way to make this less of an issue would be to rewrite the
> documentation in a str
尊敬的debian-devel：
迎国庆大优惠[特卖] ！
因艾商城为了答谢新老顾客的厚爱！决定在2003年09月25日―2003年10月30日
VP-RX阴茎增大疗程装 9 折大优惠。欢迎新老顾客光临选购！注册会员订购有产品增送！
详细介绍和图片请看：http://www.yinlove.net
电话订购：021-56728806
联系人： 李小姐
QQ咨询： 202963
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 02:07:00PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > The way this garbage collection is implemented is one of the main
> > dislikes I have about aptitude. Aptitude contains a database with
> > packages that have been installed through aptitude; as such, it contains
> > no information
On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 21:40:06 +0200, MichaÅ Politowski wrote:
[locating broken packages]
> Usually I just press l~b
Cool, thanks. I didn't know that trick. (The German translation of the "l"
feature is misleading, no it's actually totally wrong... It never occurred
to me that this keybinding could
debsums only does part of the job.
File permissions and ownerships are just as important to completely
verify a package.
It may not matter to "the guy at home with a linux box" but it
greatly matters to "the admin managing a large system".
Debian does not appear to cater for this latter group
My
On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 10:05:17AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 09:40:27AM -0400, Simon Law wrote:
>
> > Some users have approached me about my packaging on tvtime, which lives
> > in main. It benefits greatly from libdscaler, a contrib package. They
> > are asking that
19 matches
Mail list logo
