Mike Mestnik wrote:
--- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How about breaking up the list in to several smaller lists, like
debian-fierwall.
Already exists, but is under used.
I think that many post 'wall questions to d-u because of the higher
population, and therefore the greater potentia
Daniel Burrows wrote:
> I generally have to resort to backports or unstable when installing Debian
> on recent hardware, because we don't update hardware drivers in stable.
> Would the kernel and X be candidates for volatile?
Let me throw something else into the discussion here. With the new
--- Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 11:41:25 -0700 (PDT), Mike wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > I note that back in Jan 2003, someone had the same problem but got
> > > no response on the debian-user mailing li
Hey Debian-devels!
I have had a package idea, for a long time now. The idea, was a
package, containing a "Flush-all" firewall script. Adding this script to
be ran at bootup. Just for the simplicity. I tend to keep forgetting to
add it myself.
So tonight i took the time to create such a package.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: python-libfuse
Version : 1.3
Upstream Author : Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/avf
* License : GPL
Description : Python bindings for FUSE (Filesystems in USErland)
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Package name: pmount
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Martin Pitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
URL : (currently in Ubuntu, will put it on
http://www.piware.de/projects.shtml soon)
License : GPL
Description :
Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Any pre-existing piece of software (let's call it X) which interfaces
> with A must stay fully functional. New features may be added to A and
> might not be available via the original interface, but any feature
> previously available must still work in th
Jérôme Warnier wrote:
Le dim 03/10/2004 à 19:26, David Goodenough a écrit :
On Sunday 03 October 2004 16:54, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
Is there a framework for executing once a script at next reboot in
Debian (Sarge|Sid)? Any idea of a "clean" way to do it?
Thanks
One comment, it is rather "Not the Lin
Hi, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Henning Makholm in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Some things are not so obvious:
>>
>> Should volatile include updates of packages such as debian-keyring?
>> debian-policy and developers-reference?
>
> Those who need these packages will run Sid anyway.
I hope I'll be
Le dim 03/10/2004 à 19:26, David Goodenough a écrit :
> On Sunday 03 October 2004 16:54, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
> > Is there a framework for executing once a script at next reboot in
> > Debian (Sarge|Sid)? Any idea of a "clean" way to do it?
> >
> > Thanks
>
> One comment, it is rather "Not the Li
Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > But isn't volatile.d.o supposed to *be* the out-of-band mechanism
> > (whatever out-of-band means here)?
> No. clamav virus signatures, for example, can be maintained by a program,
> freshcla
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 20:48 +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:14 +0200, Robert Collins wrote:
> > Thats quite different - I'd love for this to be consolidated and
> > addressed though.
>
>
> The experimental version of ifupdown addresses this to some extent. The
> if-up.d scr
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 12:59:01PM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:36:40AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> > SHARED TEMPLATES
> >It's actually possible to have a template and a question that
> >are shared among a set of packages. All the packages have t
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 15:46:
Scripsit Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 20:22:
[volatile.debian.org]
Security fixes should be handled by security.d.o.
Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
Security fixes *to* packages already in volatile is a grey area
paddy [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 18:14:
If you put it that way, I have to agree with you. However, I would make
one restriction:
- packages in volatile have to keep their commandline (both input and
output) interfaces compatible,
would that be 'have to' as in 'MUST'?
Yes.
define compatible.
Not rea
On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> interface is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp
> mechanism, but not for the network mechanism. Where is the difference
The reason there continues to be a need
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 14:30:14 +0200, Robert Collins wrote:
> Thats quite different - I'd love for this to be consolidated and
> addressed though.
The experimental version of ifupdown addresses this to some extent. The
if-up.d scripts are run only after the PPP interface is created.
--
Thomas Ho
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I currently don't have the time and energy to maintain this package
properly, so I hereby request co-maintainer(s) for it. There are
currently no RC bugs in it and I will probably fix them if they arise,
but there are other things to do like updating to the latest up
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
I currently don't have the time and energy to maintain ion2 and ion3
as well as I should, so I hereby request a co-maintainer for
them. There are no big problems with the packages as they are, but
they need to be updated to the latest upstream versions.
The package
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas writes:
>> > In cases like this one, what has happened is that the copyright holder
>> > has simply failed to make legal distribution possible, by saying "you
>> > must distribute complete source" and then failing to
John Hasler wrote:
> Nathanael Nerode writes:
>> To me, this means that Broadcom didn't know what the hell it was doing.
>> I cannot divine Broadcom's actual intentions from that, and Broadcom can
>> easily and convincingly claim that it intended something different from
>> what you assume.
>
> T
Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 10, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Until they do one of these two things, the firmware is not safe to
>> distribute. I don't know why upstream is distributing it; I believe they
>> are simply being sloppy about licensing.
> You know well that upstre
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 05:02:23PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 16:05:
>
> >>For instance, suppose there are Packages A and B in volatile.
> >>(A) has an interface (1) that is only used by (B) in the whole of debian.
> >
> >"In the whole of Debian" is not th
sven writes:
> - volatile.d.o: security and virus scanners, anti-spam software and
> similarly fast moving software needed mostly on servers
- volatile.d.o: security and virus scanners, anti-spam software and
similarly fast moving software
> - backports.d.o: New (versions of) user interface sof
For about a couple of months I've been working in order to fix 'tutos'
so that the latest upstream, plus additional plugins and handlers, is
included in Sarge. The version currently available in testing is very
old and misses lots of new features, plus has some annoying bugs.
I've been in contact
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 03:05:05PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > > > To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> > > > be
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
> practice in lawsuits.
Right, but this is not imputation of intent, and it's generally done
under the UCC which worked a sea change in US commercial contracts law
for this purpose, b
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > You cannot infer person A's intent in doing something merely by
> > assuming that it must be the same as persons B, C, and D.
>
> Well, of course you can. A lot of contracts are made this way (for
> example, if you buy something in a shop).
Actuall
Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 12/10/2004 16:05:
For instance, suppose there are Packages A and B in volatile.
(A) has an interface (1) that is only used by (B) in the whole of debian.
"In the whole of Debian" is not the only concern here; I would say it
is not even relevant. Admins of un*x systems a
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 07:57:06AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sven Mueller writes:
> > Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world...
> ^^^
Yes, I neglected this half of the scenario, but see below.
> I wrote:
> > Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debi
Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 07:22:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > Scripsit paddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To be fair, the issue is that if were just rules, there wouldn't
> > > be a need.
> > Why not?
> Well, the argument goes:
> that can be done
Scripsit Sven Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Henning Makholm [u] wrote on 11/10/2004 20:22:
> [volatile.debian.org]
> > Security fixes should be handled by security.d.o.
> Perhaps yes, perhaps no.
Security fixes *to* packages already in volatile is a grey area, yes.
I thought I was talking abou
Sven Mueller writes:
> Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world...
^^^
I wrote:
> Those things belong in the non-existent backports.debian.org, not in
> volatile.debian.org.
paddy writes:
> define 'breaks compatibilty'.
> As long as it _is_ still the same package...
On Oct 12, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree with Jörg, though, that this should be unified for sarge+1.
I doubt this is even possible, the semantics are very different for any
non-trivial scenario (and for many trivial ones too).
> Jörg: file a wishlist bu
Re: Nikita V. Youshchenko in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am
> somewhat involved into.
>
> Is something like that available/planned?
Planned yes, available no:
http://people.debian.org/~terpstra/message/20030918.123817.598830d5.en
Florian Weimer writes:
> Is U.S. law really *that* different?
No. It is commonplace to introduce evidence about established industry
practice in lawsuits.
--
John Hasler
John,
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 06:48:00PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Sven Mueller writes:
> > Say a new open source network security scanner enters the world, and it
> > works well when compiled against Debian stable, we might want to add it
> > to v.d.o even though it wasn't available when the la
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:59 +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2004 20.24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> > > interface is coming up or down? Ma
On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 04:30:36PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, paddy said:
> > On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 12:45:34PM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Martin Schulze said:
> > > > A while ago there was a discussion in which it was said that suc
On Monday 11 October 2004 20.24, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 11, Joerg Sommer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > why ppp provides its own mechanism of telling programs when the
> > interface is coming up or down? Many programs register for the ppp
> > mechanism, but not for the network mechanism. Wher
* Noèl Köthe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [041012 11:18]:
> > http://kftpgrabber.sourceforge.net
> > Anyone that can join the project as a packager?
> > #kftpgrabber on irc.freenode.net
> best would be to send a RFP like described on
> http://www.de.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
Vince Tantardini <[EMAIL PROTECTED
On Tuesday 12 October 2004 12:33, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > [attibution missing, probably Adam Conrad]
> >
> > > Perhaps so, but if we went out of our way to depend/conflict against
> > > every broken package that's bee
> > Current situation is version of libapache-mod-php4 currently in
> > testing does not work correctly with version of libc6 currently in
> > testing.
>
> If a certain range of versions of a package was buggy, that is annoying,
> but not a reason for all packages affected by it to depend on non-bu
Hello.
I can't find a way to track more-or-less easilly all bugs in BTS that I am
somewhat involved into.
Currently I can subscribe to bugs on per-package-basis (using PTS), or to
all bugs using [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Something thar could be really usable is subscribing to bugs that I've
either su
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ttf-essays
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : John Stracke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.thibault.org/fonts/essays/
* License : LGPL
Description : TrueType font based on the typeface used in a 1743 Eng
[ I'm not subbed to -devel, this was pulled from the archive -- please Cc me
on replies ]
Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Jeff Teunissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Primitive? heh. And as for the rest, I haven't had trouble -- it's
> > just an infocmp away. In any case, switching the emulation is tr
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 12:49:47PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> [attibution missing, probably Adam Conrad]
> > Perhaps so, but if we went out of our way to depend/conflict against
> > every broken package that's been in testing/unstable, package
> > relationships would be ridiculousy unwie
On Saturday 09 October 2004 21.33, Adam Majer wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >Scroll up to the top of the country list and you'll see "enter
> >information manually".
>
> Not to nitpick here, but shouldn't options like "None of the above" be
> at the end of a list? Generally, the idea of picking s
Am Dienstag, den 12.10.2004, 01:54 -0400 schrieb Kevin Smith:
> http://kftpgrabber.sourceforge.net
>
> Anyone that can join the project as a packager?
>
> #kftpgrabber on irc.freenode.net
best would be to send a RFP like described on
http://www.de.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
--
NoÃl KÃthe
Debian G
> > > > > * Finally drop the bogus libapache-mod-ssl dependency from the
> > > > > apache1.3 php4 module, as glibc (>= 2.3.2.ds1-17) has fixed the
> > > > > dlopen refcount bug that we were hacking around (closes: #205553,
> > > > > #230956, #271000)
> > > >
> > > > However, libapache-mod-php4 cd
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 06:25:33AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> Unfortunately this changed the kernel architecture from s390 to s390x.
> This in turn has the potential to break older configure scripts.
May I suggest that you use the linux32 util? It should change
the returned uname -r from s
http://kftpgrabber.sourceforge.net
Anyone that can join the project as a packager?
#kftpgrabber on irc.freenode.net
Any generous help or time donated would be greatly apprecaited.
Regard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Martin Schulze:
> Unfortunately this changed the kernel architecture from s390 to
> s390x.
May I suggest to fix this in the kernel?
On Mon 10/11/04 14:37, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:37:06PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Price for Commercial Software:
> >> > Adobe Illustrator CS - 90.00
> >> > Adobe Acrobat 6.0 Professional - 100.00
> >> > McAfee Personal Fire
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Unfortunately this changed the kernel architecture from s390 to s390x.
> This in turn has the potential to break older configure scripts.
According to GNU upstream CVS, s390x was added as a basic machine in
2001-03-09. That is *HIDEOUSLY* out-of-date
55 matches
Mail list logo
