Quoting Junichi Uekawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> shadow 1:4.0.12-1
>
> was the first version to introduce the change;
> and apparently it didn't enter testing until recently
> since it had a few bugs.
Yep, that one slightly broke adduser in environments without shadow
passwords.
Marc had to fix
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: xparam
Version : 1.22
Upstream Author : Ronnie Maor and Michael Brand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://xparam.sourceforge.net/
* License : Revised GPL, LGPL compatibi
Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Oh!, the irony.
>
> (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01242.html
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2005/09/msg01246.html)
Unlike Joey Hess, I did not say that people who wait for the bug
report are remiss or being bad people.
Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> A few weeks ago, libpng10-0 was removed from the archive. A
>> consequence of this was that all gnome-1 packages (and there are a
>> number still around) instantly became FTBFS.
>
> (s/FTBFS/uninstallab
Frans Pop wrote:
> Do you mean that the security-flawed kernel patch would not have been
> needed?
Yes. For those interested, the full story is as follows.
gcc-3.3 contained inline functions in the C++ header atomicity.h -- included
by nearly every C++ program, and thus part of the binary inte
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Florian Ragwitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: libclass-rebless-perl
Version : 0.03
Upstream Author : Gaal Yahas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/~gaal/Class-Rebless/
* License : Perl (GPL/Artistic)
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 01:41:41PM +0200, Sylvain Beucler wrote:
[A whole bunch of stuff I severly trimmed because I like the sound
of my own voice. ^_^]
## apt-src install & build - NOT indentical
## Note: the build system has vanilla libc6, not the patched one
> $ debdiff ../dtach*.deb dtach_0.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 05:24:12PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Hello all,
>
[...]
>
> There are two bugs against the OpenAFS package, one requesting prebuilt
> modules (Bug#224527) and one requesting that modules be automatically
> rebuilt when the kernel is upgraded (Bug#168852). I'm not sur
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 06:53:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> But it's then very hard to see if this breaks anything. After all, the
> relevant change was made in netcfg in July of 2004. For an entire year,
> it was in every system installed, and nobody complained, although a few
> of us noticed it
On Oct 09, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What about /etc/modules processing? IMHO it really should be done *before*
> udev tries to coldplug, to give the local admin a well-known and very easy
> way to load some key modules in the order he wants them loaded.
>
> I just
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Oct 09, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems that the best solution would be to have mountvirtfs split into two
> > parts, one mounts /proc and /sys, the other mounts /dev/pts, /dev/shm (and
> > anything else that might get added unde
[..]
Sorry, wrong mailing-list.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Évidemment, ça s'applique aussi à Ubuntu ou aux autres distributions
qui utilisent dhclient aka dhcp-client)
Disclaimer: Ceux qui ne travaillent pas dans un des bureaux de BeezNest
ne savent probablement pas de quoi il s'agit, mais les autres
comprendront toute l'importance de ce mail.
J'ai un p
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
[...]
I have just created the skeleton of what AMD64 certification page will
be [1].
Please, fill in the gaps.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/amd64EtchReleaseRecertification
Having seen a request for this for (at least) two architectures, and
finding *many* simil
On Oct 09, Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that the best solution would be to have mountvirtfs split into two
> parts, one mounts /proc and /sys, the other mounts /dev/pts, /dev/shm (and
> anything else that might get added under /dev). This means that
> under /etc/rcS.d we
I've just been playing with udev version 0.070-3. It seems that it's start
script runs after /etc/init.d/mountvirtfs. This means that when it umount's
the /dev/pts and /dev/shm file systems it has to mount them again.
It seems that the best solution would be to have mountvirtfs split into two
On Sat, 08 Oct 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I have a better idea, then; how about if they just never have new major
> versions of libpng, ever again? The last two soname changes were in fact
> total bullshit, and judging by past events I can see them using symbol
Or, for something that has a mod
Hi,
First of all, sorry if you get this mail more than once.
I have just created the skeleton of what AMD64 certification page will
be [1].
Please, fill in the gaps.
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/amd64EtchReleaseRecertification
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.
Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> > After having read this - wouldn't it be easier to report the user
> > doing the spamming, and simply reverting all changes done by this
> > user.
>
> There are a limited number of wiki which have this functionality.
> Neither the current nor the new wiki have that
Sorry for the delay..
For the record:
> > > > I got an issue though, but I think it is related to glibc itself:
> > > > after installing the built source packages, aptitude/apt-get
> > > > absolutely want to upgrade them with the binary versions:
> > > > : The following package
Hi,
> >
> >http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pbuilder/testsuite/cdebootstrap/pbuilder-create-etch.log?cvsroot=pbuilder
>
> I do not have a clue about pbuilder, but adduser's support of
> shadow-less systems was first broken in 3.64 by the fix for bug
> 298883.
Due to cdebootstrap b
On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:06:43PM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Pierre THIERRY in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > - Oh, yes. My package is only compiled for i386. O:-)
> >
> > For the sake of my curiosity, aren't the packages in experimental taken
> > care of by the autobuilders?
>
> Not by the D
On Sunday 09 October 2005 03:10, Henning Makholm wrote:
--cut--
> > The CVSup requires Modula-3 compilator to build, so also I'm
> > planning to package Ezm3 - An Easier Modula-3 Distribution, which is
> > designated to compile CVSup only.
>
> Best of luck with that. Torsten might still be interest
On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 11:56:01 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You can check it out, but the last successful testsuite that I ran
>and committed to CVS is 4 Oct 2005; which is not months.
>
>http://cvs.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/pbuilder/testsuite/cdebootstrap/pbuilder-cre
24 matches
Mail list logo
