Package: cups
Version: 1.5.2-9
Le vendredi, 8 avril 2016, 10.31:17 Josh Triplett a écrit :
> I'm not going to go through a full analysis here, but here's a *tiny*
> subset of the output on my system, with some annotations:
>
> (…)
> cups Recommends: printer-driver-gutenprint
>
> Why does cups re
On Apr 12, 2016 00:34, "Tollef Fog Heen" wrote:
>
> ]] Michael Lustfield
>
> > In this particular case, I would suggest first making letsencrypt a
> > Suggests. Then, I would suggest considering snakeoil for the https or
> > just installing with http-only and providing a documented tool for
> > mo
* Ben Hutchings , 2016-04-11, 02:22:
Would it be useful to have a linker option to omit a NEEDED entry for a
particular library? The application could then call
dlopen("libfoo.so.42", RTLD_NOW|RTLD_GLOBAL) before it starts using the
library, typically right before calling foo_init(), but it wo
]] Michael Lustfield
> In this particular case, I would suggest first making letsencrypt a
> Suggests. Then, I would suggest considering snakeoil for the https or
> just installing with http-only and providing a documented tool for
> moving to using letsencrypt. You and I both know that we're onl
]] Pirate Praveen
> On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:44:09 PM IST, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >I'd really like this to be an optional addon, since there's no way you
> >could know how to integrate with how I acquire my certs. I also
> >question whether it's the job of an application to set up
> >certificates
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:41 AM, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:18:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an
>> optional thing two years back.
>>
>> 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:44:09 PM IST, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>Is that why we've been pushing for SSH over telnet for twenty years
>now?
I should clarify, importance of https and end to end encryption was not
considered widely. There were a minority pushing for encryption. But is is more
mainstre
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 03:18:58PM +0530, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an
> optional thing two years back.
>
> 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just need to
> click/press yes button to get an encrypted serv
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 3:35:56 PM IST, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>In this case, this could be done centrally, for example in the
>letsencrypt package.
With debhelper integration like we do for init scripts or systemd. If
debian/.letsencrypt is present, it should take care of the
remaining.
--
Sent f
On 2016-04-11 11:48, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> It would be a good time to add letsencrypt support to php-horde and every
> other service dealing with sensitive data like passwords.
no, seriously not.
i am all for having all web traffic encrypted. that's why the web-server
package *may* push for enc
]] Pirate Praveen
> 1.Most people in the world including myself thought encryption was an
> optional thing two years back.
Is that why we've been pushing for SSH over telnet for twenty years now?
> 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just
> need to click/press yes butt
❦ 11 avril 2016 15:18 +0530, Pirate Praveen :
> 2.automating ssl was not possible before letsencrypt. Now you just
> need to click/press yes button to get an encrypted service running.
>
> And for those who do not want it, the default is 'no' for both ssl and
> letsencrypt.
>
> It would be a
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 11 1:35:39 PM IST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"
wrote:
>Isn't it how every other service doing it?
>
>yes sure.
>
>but if i install other web-services (e.g. php-horde) they don't bother
>me with setting up an enrypted webservice.
>the only reasonable package that should sug
On 2016-04-10 03:55, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>>
>> while i really appreciate all the work you are doing for the gitlab
>> package, i honestly have the feeling that you are trying to make too
>> many decisions on behalf of the system administrator who wants to
>> install gitlab.
>
> I just want the s
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Binding *is* lazy by default, but loading of NEEDED libraries is eager
> since ELF dynamic symbol references don't say which library they're
> expected to be resolved in (perhaps the best *and* worst feature of ELF
> dynamic linking). If we
On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 13:35 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
[...]
> The major place where this breaks down is with shared
> libraries, since, due to how dynamic linking works, even shared libraries
> only used in specific dconfigurations have to be listed in Depends. But,
> because the shared library m
Tollef Fog Heen writes:
> ]] Russ Allbery
>> I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary
>> package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack
>> of a better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends
>> processing for anything below th
]] Russ Allbery
> I think a more correct fix would (unfortunately) involve a new binary
> package field that we don't currently have: Depends-Shallow (for lack of a
> better term) that acts like Depends *except* disables Recommends
> processing for anything below the shallow dependencies in the t
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 10 12:28:29 AM IST, "IOhannes m zmölnig (Debian/GNU)"
wrote:
>hi,
>
>On 04/08/2016 05:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
>> See #819854 for a background.
>>
>> Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt
>in for letsencrypt by running something like
>>
>> ap
On Fri, 08 Apr 2016, Russ Allbery wrote:
> So, where this goes wrong is the upower -> libimobiledevice4 dependency.
> As you say, the dependency is correct (or at least correct-ish): we don't
> want to dlopen everything and try to push all those patches upstream. But
> this is the weakest link of
hi,
On 04/08/2016 05:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> See #819854 for a background.
>
> Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for
> letsencrypt by running something like
>
> apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt
>
> But I would like letsencrypt to be available by d
On Sat, Apr 09, 2016 at 08:34:24AM +, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest the =
> > daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency.
> > Anyone needing the daemon can install the dae
Quoting Sune Vuorela (2016-04-09 10:34:24)
> On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>> I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest
>> the = daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency.
>> Anyone needing the daemon can install the daemon - you shouldn't
On 2016-04-09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> I disagree that we need a new field: Simply lower to at most suggest the =
> daemon: It is for the daemon to declare a stronger dependency.
> Anyone needing the daemon can install the daemon - you shouldn't expect =
> libraries to pull in daemons (just as y
Quoting Russ Allbery (2016-04-09 03:20:25)
> Adam Borowski writes:
>> Like:
>> xfce4-power-manager -> upower -> libimobiledevice4 -> usbmuxd
>
>> Is the recommendation from libimobiledevice4 to usbmuxd valid? Sure
>> it is -- the library is useless without the daemon.
[...]
> So, where this goes
Håkon Alstadheim writes:
> Den 08. april 2016 19:31, skrev Josh Triplett:
>> emacs24-common Recommends: emacs24-el
>>
>> I don't think all but the most unusual configurations need the elisp
>> source of the functionality already provided by the main emacs24
>> package. Emacs/elisp developers will
Den 08. april 2016 19:31, skrev Josh Triplett:
> emacs24-common Recommends: emacs24-el
>
> I don't think all but the most unusual configurations need the elisp
> source of the functionality already provided by the main emacs24
> package. Emacs/elisp developers will want this.
>
>
There is ofte
Josh Triplett writes:
> Wookey wrote:
>> +++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]:
>>> For instance,
>>> "If is a build tool, command-line tool, or library,
>>> already provides documentation in man, info, or text format, and
>>> -doc provides HTML or other formats, should have a
>>> 'Sugge
Adam Borowski writes:
> Like:
> xfce4-power-manager -> upower -> libimobiledevice4 -> usbmuxd
> Is the recommendation from libimobiledevice4 to usbmuxd valid? Sure it is
> -- the library is useless without the daemon.
> Is the dependency from upower to libimobiledevice4 valid? It is -- using
Wookey wrote:
> +++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]:
> > I wonder if debian-policy section 12 should talk about the desired
> > package relationship between and -doc?
>
> The world has changed since the policy was originally written. I do
> like to have -doc package for most things instal
+++ Josh Triplett [2016-04-08 10:31 -0700]:
> I wonder if debian-policy section 12 should talk about the desired
> package relationship between and -doc?
The world has changed since the policy was originally written. I do
like to have -doc package for most things installed and find it
very annoy
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:51:18PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-04-08 21:05:23)
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> >> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off
> >> installing things which are Recommended a
Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-04-08 21:05:23)
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
>> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off
>> installing things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know
>> for a while it was the policy of #debian t
2016-04-08 18:31 Josh Triplett:
Agreed. I turned off Recommends years ago on all my systems, because it
installs too many things I don't want (by both the mild "takes up
space" criteria and in many cases the "don't want an extra daemon
running" criteria).
Here's a Python script (using python-a
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 11:49:38PM -0400, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing
> things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while it
> was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done that
> because
Adrien CLERC wrote:
> Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit :
> > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing
> > things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while
> > it was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done
> >
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 10:47:16 +0200
Adrien CLERC wrote:
> >> It makes me think I'd love a system where Apt::Install-Recommends
> >> could be set to "ask" and let apt ask me if I want the recommended
> >> packages for my current request.
> > apt already shows you which packages are to be brought i
Le 08/04/2016 10:10, Neil Williams a écrit :
> On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:58:04 +0200
> Adrien CLERC wrote:
>
>> Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit :
>>> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off
>>> installing things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I
>>> k
Hi,
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-04-08 09:48:59)
> On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 12:42:30 PM IST, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
> >Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a
> >standard system installation (at least to a point where you can expect
> >normal APT behavior), like a Docker or LXC con
On Fri, 8 Apr 2016 09:58:04 +0200
Adrien CLERC wrote:
> Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit :
> > [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off
> > installing things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I
> > know for a while it was the policy of #debian to jus
Le 08/04/2016 05:49, Harlan Lieberman-Berg a écrit :
> [1]: I say default here, but really, systems which turn off installing
> things which are Recommended are almost unusuable; I know for a while
> it was the policy of #debian to just turn away people who had done
> that because the system would
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 12:42:30 PM IST, Tiago Ilieve wrote:
>Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a
>standard system installation (at least to a point where you can expect
>normal APT behavior), like a Docker or LXC container, which are
>lighter than complete virtual machine
Pirate,
On 8 April 2016 at 02:30, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I use 'cowbuilder --login' chroot to test gitlab installs on a clean system.
Maybe you can use an environment that's a little bit closer to a
standard system installation (at least to a point where you can expect
normal APT behavior), lik
On Friday 08 April 2016 10:52 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Yes, pbuilder/sbuild both disable recommends by default. I doubt
> anything will build-depend on gitlab though :)
>
I use 'cowbuilder --login' chroot to test gitlab installs on a clean system.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signa
Quoting Pirate Praveen (2016-04-08 06:27:26)
> On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 9:22:58 AM IST, Paul Wise wrote:
> >Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends, usually they are opt-out
> >by default.
>
> I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login
> chroot, letsencrypt was not installe
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login chroot,
> letsencrypt was not installed. May be that is cowbuilder/pbuilder defaults.
Yes, pbuilder/sbuild both disable recommends by default. I doubt
anything will build-d
On 2016, ഏപ്രിൽ 8 9:22:58 AM IST, Paul Wise wrote:
>Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends, usually they are opt-out
>by default.
I was thinking the same, but when tried it in a cowbuilder --login chroot,
letsencrypt was not installed. May be that is cowbuilder/pbuilder defaults.
Thanks
Pirate Praveen writes:
> Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for
> letsencrypt by running something like
Hello!
By default [1], apt will install packages which are Recommended when you
install the first one.
If gitlab Recommends letsencrypt, it will install
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> See #819854 for a background.
>
> Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for
> letsencrypt by running something like
>
> apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt
Only if the sysadmin has disabled recommends, usuall
See #819854 for a background.
Currently gitlab recommends letsencrypt, it means someone has to opt in for
letsencrypt by running something like
apt-get install gitlab letsencrypt
But I would like letsencrypt to be available by default (postinst asks if they
want to use letsencrypt, there is no
50 matches
Mail list logo
