Re: greylisting on debian.org?

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > So the meaning of 4xx is "temporary local problem". Sending that when > you don't have a temporary local problem is a violation, right there. > Must the standard repeat after every sentence, "oh, and don't lie". Actually, that's just the er

gnucash on alpha

There is a grave bug (#378346) filed against gnucash on alpha which seems to be quite arch specific. Mail to the debian-alpha team for assistance has not been answered (though I have been told that the team is very small). Is there someone with access to an alpha that will look at this bug, and

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: > Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > >> If the anti-spam advocates consistently said "our measures impose > >> such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it", I would be > >> del

minimizing downtime of a daemon

One of the template NM questions is about "how to minimize the downtime of a daemon during package upgrade (in maintainer scripts)". ssh does an "/etc/init.d/ssh restart" in postinstall, which (with luck) means that there will be *no* downtime. This doesn't seem to be necessary for allowing ssh up

lilypond and python

I have been criticized for not uploading the new lilypond packages and being quite a bit behind the public releases. Unfortunately, the current lilypond requires python 2.4, and expects to call it as "python", not just in the build process, but at run time. I had been assuming that the python te

Re: Congrats to the ftpmasters

On 7/18/06, Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The NEW queue is down to *22* packages, which is totally unheard of. Only three packages have been waiting longer than a month -- so Javier's package is no longer in the 'endless wait' state. At the same time, the RM bugs are in fairly good

Re: Congrats to the ftpmasters

On Tue, 2006-07-18 at 16:57 -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > The NEW queue is down to *22* packages, which is totally unheard of. > Only three packages have been waiting longer than a month -- so > Javier's package is no longer in the 'endless wait' state. Agreed, I've uploaded three new packages

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/18/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:33:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 7/18/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> Hello everybody, > >> > >> here are some news about

Congrats to the ftpmasters

The NEW queue is down to *22* packages, which is totally unheard of. Only three packages have been waiting longer than a month -- so Javier's package is no longer in the 'endless wait' state. At the same time, the RM bugs are in fairly good shape, and clearly removals are also being processed pret

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So by default it is assumed that I should make Ubuntu's work and dig > into these patches to see if some pieces should be applied into Debian? > No thanks, I am getting tired of all those Debian developers who are > more interested in improving Ubuntu tha

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 05:33:45PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > On 7/18/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > >> Hello everybody, > >> > >> here are some news about the latest changes made to the Package Tracking > >> Sy

Re: Greylisting: discussion should stop here, for now (Re: greylisting on debian.org?)

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 21:26, Thomas Bushnell BSG a écrit : > Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > For the record (it was already said in the thread IIRC), the setup > > we are discussing is in production on alioth since sth like 4 or 5 > > monthes now (maybe a bit less) on my idea, and

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On 7/18/06, Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello everybody, > > here are some news about the latest changes made to the Package Tracking > System. > > New derivatives keyword > --- > > The PTS will be

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello everybody, > > here are some news about the latest changes made to the Package Tracking > System. > > New derivatives keyword > --- > > The PTS will be used to relay informations from derivative distribu

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: >> If the anti-spam advocates consistently said "our measures impose >> such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it", I would be >> delighted. > > the measures impose a cost, but we think it's worth it

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Jul 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, and this is not the point. The point is that the standard does > *not* say that the retry must come from the same place, or even > anything like the same place. The point is that in the real world nobody cares that this is not speci

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Jul 18, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Because there is no reason to do this, this is not a standard issue but > > plain operations. > Really? So you think the IETF would happily issue a statement > agreeing? Yes. > Of course, the facts are that the IETF regards graylistin

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > If the anti-spam advocates consistently said "our measures impose > such-and-such a cost, but we think it's worth it", I would be > delighted. the measures impose a cost, but we think it's worth it Can we get greylisting now? -- Loïc Minier <

Re: Greylisting: discussion should stop here, for now (Re: greylisting on debian.org?)

Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > For the record (it was already said in the thread IIRC), the setup we > are discussing is in production on alioth since sth like 4 or 5 monthes > now (maybe a bit less) on my idea, and thanks to Raphael Hertzog for > actually using his alioth admin

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes: > On Jul 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Still, if you think it's just nitpicking, then why not ask the IETF to >> amend the standard to clearly permit this practice? > Because there is no reason to do this, this is not a standard i

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Even worse, there's nothing preventing a site from saying it has a > temporary local problem when it _does_. Thus, if your mail server > can't handle retrying, it will drop mail every time something is not > in perfect working order. And hardware or ne

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said: >> And finally, if we don't care about standards conformance, I have said >> that a good second-best is to document exactly what our requirements >> are, rather than burying them in apparent secrecy.

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Josselin Mouette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I have refused greylisting for a long time for that exact reason. > However the setup Pierre Habouzit describes does not delay most of > legitimate mail. Frankly, the remaining delays are sporadic and one can > live with them. What bothers me is that

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

Re: Wouter Verhelst 2006-07-18 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > On the contrary people who want to have the "derivatives" keyword on all > > their subscriptions can use one of those commands: > > keywordall + derivatives > > keywordall [EMAIL PROTECTED] + derivatives > > This is so cool that I immediately

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.18.1452 +0200]: > If I'm wrong, could you please point me to where is documented where I > can subscribe to all packages with "Maintainer: [EMAIL PROTECTED]" so that > when I upload a new package to the archive I will be subscribed to it >

Bug#378746: ITP: chameleon-cursor-theme -- a modern but not gaudy X11 mouse theme

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Adam Borowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: chameleon-cursor-theme [1] Version : 0.5-1 Upstream Author : Giuseppe Benigno * URL : http://www.{gnome,kde,xfce[2]}-look.org/content/show.php?content=38459 * License : G

Bug#378734: ITP: axtls -- TLSv1 SSL library designed for embedded platforms

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Roberto Lumbreras <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: axtls Version : 1.01 Upstream Author : Cameron Rich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://www.axtls.co.nr/ * License : LGPL Description : TLSv1 SSL library designed

Re: These new diffs are great, but...

On Fri 30 Jun 2006, Martin Schulze wrote: > > You know that you can easily turn off this feature by adjusting apt.conf: > >Acquire::Pdiffs { "false"; }; Ah, great :) After not having done "aptitude update" for a month or so, after downloading all the hunderds (!) of diffs, I got the followi

Re: flash drive automount.

Le mercredi 19 juillet 2006 à 00:36 +0545, Basanta Shrestha a écrit : > Dear Debian Developers, > > I have a 512MB DataTraveller Flash Disk. It is automounted under > ubuntu but fails to automount under debian. Has ubuntu patched things > up to get this result? Can this not be achieved under debi

Re: flash drive automount.

Basanta Shrestha wrote: > Dear Debian Developers, > > I have a 512MB DataTraveller Flash Disk. It is automounted under ubuntu > but fails to automount under debian. Has ubuntu patched things up to get > this result? Can this not be achieved under debian? > > There is no problem automounting othe

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> Two things: >> >> - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and >> unpack every source package to get that file. > > Exactly. > >> - control files can be

Re: Recent sid amd64 rpath oddity?

Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi, > > On the 3rd May I built libxfce4util and generated > libxfce4util2_4.3.90.1-1_amd64.deb. This is in the archive exactly as I > built it. It has a couple of lintian failures that I missed and have since > been fixed in our SVN. > > Upstream have

flash drive automount.

Dear Debian Developers, I have a 512MB DataTraveller Flash Disk. It is automounted under ubuntu but fails to automount under debian. Has ubuntu patched things up to get this result? Can this  not be achieved under debian? There is no problem automounting other kinds to flash/thumb drivers! 9

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 01:36:47PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.18.1318 +0200]: > > Each subscription subscribe you to a given (source) package. Keywords > > are actually a filter, but filter notification for a given package. > > No, y

Re: Greylisting: discussion should stop here, for now (Re: greylisting on debian.org?)

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 13:20, Adrian von Bidder a écrit : > Apart from the fact that the opinions seem to be set (and haven't > really changed since the last time the discussion came up IIRC, so we > really can stop arguing - nothing new for quite some time...): am I > correct in my observation tha

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

also sprach Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.18.1318 +0200]: > Each subscription subscribe you to a given (source) package. Keywords > are actually a filter, but filter notification for a given package. No, you can have filters per email and filters per email/package tuple to overri

Greylisting: discussion should stop here, for now (Re: greylisting on debian.org?)

Apart from the fact that the opinions seem to be set (and haven't really changed since the last time the discussion came up IIRC, so we really can stop arguing - nothing new for quite some time...): am I correct in my observation that nobody who has participated in this discussion up to now is

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 01:04:06PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.18.1157 +0200]: > > command to set the keyword subscriptions for any current and future > > packages maintained by a given maintainer? > > The keywords are actually more a fi

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

also sprach Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.07.18.1157 +0200]: > Would it be possible to implement something like a 'keywordmaint' > command to set the keyword subscriptions for any current and future > packages maintained by a given maintainer? The keywords are actually more a filter, s

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:59:41PM -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote: > >Is an archive of those mails available somewhere? This way the "small > >patches" will be available even for packages of people not subscribed to > >the PTS. Or for people who subscribe after some version has been > >uploaded to ubu

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

(btw, why was there a Mail-Followup-To: d-d-a?) Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The maintainer can thus subscribe to this specific keyword and be informed > when Ubuntu introduces changes to their Debian package. Is there any documentation about which keywords the address in the Mai

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:47:13AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:47:49AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > > * Exim sender/callout fails with a fatal error. > > "Fatal" means not temporary? Yes. It means exim did this to one of the MX hosts listed for the doma

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 09:56:22AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Two things: > > - control files are part of the source. w-b would have to download and > unpack every source package to get that file. Exactly. > - control files can be auto generated during build (e.g. glibc) and > might no

Re: Bits from the Package Tracking System

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:39:18PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Changing keyword on all subscriptions > - > > The control bot has been expanded to support new commands to add/remove > keyword on all subscriptions. People who are subscribed to packages with >

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 11:51, Christian Perrier a écrit : > > Then it would be OK to implement it. The very best would be to do > > the same I do on my mail server, where users can individually > > choose greylisting or not for personal mail to them, by a settings > > file in their home directory.

Bug#378671: ITP: jpnevulator - Serial sniffer

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Freddy Spierenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: jpnevulator Version : 1.2.2 Upstream Author : Freddy Spierenburg * URL : http://jpnevulator.snarl.nl/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: C Description : Serial

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

> Then it would be OK to implement it. The very best would be to do the > same I do on my mail server, where users can individually choose > greylisting or not for personal mail to them, by a settings file in > their home directory. But if a strong majority wants greylisting, it > is OK to just do

Re: Measuring "should I greylist?" false positive rate [was: greylisting on debian.org?]

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:27, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > it's the number of mails that are beeing resubmited per week with > > my system. so in fact, in them, there is 49 spams. > > Fascinating. Which RBL's do you use for that

Recent sid amd64 rpath oddity?

Hi, On the 3rd May I built libxfce4util and generated libxfce4util2_4.3.90.1-1_amd64.deb. This is in the archive exactly as I built it. It has a couple of lintian failures that I missed and have since been fixed in our SVN. Upstream have released recently and whilst checking these packages more

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:22:41AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : >> Bingo: Legitimate mail slowed down. You think the price is worth >> it, which is a valid opinion. I happen not to think so. > The question becomes: aren't you in a small minority? That may very

Re: Measuring "should I greylist?" false positive rate [was: greylisting on debian.org?]

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 10:03:59AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:00, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: >>> Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : >>> the discussion (...) was about enabli

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

(afaik, it's very obvious that I'm subscribed to -devel and, unless I'm wrong, I never requeted for being CC'ed in private) Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : Wrong. Disagreeing with you is not the same as not reading your arguments. Sorry that you were not convincing. I'm afraid you failed to

Re: Measuring "should I greylist?" false positive rate [was: greylisting on debian.org?]

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:03, Pierre Habouzit a écrit : > Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:00, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > > > > > > > > > the discussion (...) was about

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 05:53:25AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: >> The buildd package could just be a central hub where two or three >> knowlegable people sift through the bug reports and then distribute it >> to the affected/responsible person.

Re: Measuring "should I greylist?" false positive rate [was: greylisting on debian.org?]

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 10:00, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > > > > > > the discussion (...) was about enabling greylisting on *certain* > > *specificaly* *suspicious* ho

Re: Getting the buildds to notice new architectures in a package

Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 02:40:28PM -0400, Joe Smith wrote: >> "Wouter Verhelst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> >There is no such general solution. See >> > >> >> That says: >>

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

* Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 22:32]: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:36:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: > > > So far and unless I forget someone, I haven't seen much other people > > being strongly opposed to greylisting on Debian hosts, > > Here is one: I am strongly o

Measuring "should I greylist?" false positive rate [was: greylisting on debian.org?]

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > the discussion (...) was about enabling greylisting on *certain* > *specificaly* *suspicious* hosts. a suspicious > host is: > * either listed on some RBL's (rbl listin

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le mar 18 juillet 2006 09:34, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > This will still include legitimate mail. something like 50 over 300k is less than 0.016%. which is also really less than the usual number of false positives of your bayesian mail filter. see end of mail. > > and if you never actually

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

Le mardi 18 juillet 2006 à 09:47 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : > That is the crux of the disagreement. You guys think that as long as > "most" of the legitimate mail is not delayed, the price is worth it. I > don't think so. If too much spam gets through, *all* legitimate mail gets delayed.

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

* Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-07-17 18:43]: > It's not uncommon for big sites to have pools of high throughput > machines that don't have qrunners, and larger pools of machines that do. > The first group gets a message, and tries to deliver immediately, and > any temporary failure gets

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 12:47:49AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote: > Le lundi 17 juillet 2006 à 22:29 +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : >> On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 08:36:31AM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote: >>> Quoting Wolfgang Lonien ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): Do we use greylisting on the @debian.

Re: greylisting on debian.org?

On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:48:21PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > Le lun 17 juillet 2006 22:29, Lionel Elie Mamane a écrit : >> Here is one: I am strongly opposed to greylisting (on mail sent to >> me or that I send), for the reason that it delays legitimate mail. > which shows that you didn't r

Processed: Blocking my transition

Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > block 322762 by 378646 Bug#322762: /usr/doc still exists (transition tracking bug) Was blocked by: 189856 190020 203278 254800 254913 254924 255590 302504 319726 320084 320103 321926 322749 322769 322772 322776 322778 322779 322781 322782 322783 32278