Hi all,
I built and uploaded test package of lynx-cur in experimental
(2.8.8dev.8-2 and 2.8.8dev.9-1 today).
I changed packaging enormously so I'm afraid I made some
silly mistakes. If possible, please check and test it.
Main changes I made are, dropping lynx-cur-wrapper and so
dropping
On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 10:40:10AM +0200, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 03:52:18 -0400
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source amd64
> Version: 2.8.6-2
> Distribu
l subject to the same issue as reported, [...]
>
> This is not correct. Gracious write operations to the home directory
Then address my comment in the context of the original report.
OP claimed among other things that this is a problem with files
downloaded by lynx.
(this thread is dead as f
* Thomas Dickey:
> It's a #define. But the change to use the home directory is in the
> wrong place. I'd point out that it doesn't solve the problem, and
> that the program is still subject to the same issue as reported, [...]
This is not correct. Gracious write operations to the home director
t would be nice to ensure that the global mailcap/mime.types files also
are secure, but that's harder to do (portably) since you can't assume
much about the ownership of the file. But I did at least ensure that
those are absolute pathnames.
> > I've noticed that my comments
e appropriate behaviour? I don't mind
changing the behaviour to something which sounds sensible for you too,
but - taking the files from the cwd opens up a can of issues.
> I've noticed that my comments to followup on the lynx bug reports are
> ignored by the package maintainer
u send this to the debian-devel mailing
> list instead of as a follow-up to the bugreport?
I've noticed that my comments to followup on the lynx bug reports are
ignored by the package maintainer as well as the security team.
It's nice to get replies. (And normally expected that one
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 07:00:14AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > > There's no possibility of including that patch upstream.
> >
> > So what? If upstream does not want to accept a patch that fixes a
>
> so what? Read the patch. You certainly didn't, or if you _did_ you
> understand nothing of
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 12:47:26PM +0100, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:41:21AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>
> > > Changes:
> > > lynx (2.8.5-2sarge2.2) unstable; urgency=low
> > > .
> > >* Non-maintainer upload.
> > &g
On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 06:41:21AM -0500, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> > Changes:
> > lynx (2.8.5-2sarge2.2) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> >* Non-maintainer upload.
> >* Read user configuration from home directory, not current
> > working directory
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 07:43:17 +0100
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge2.2
> Distrib
actions âmaliciousâ on public mailing lists seems a bit... overblown for
> misattributing a patch to lynx.
hmm - if it were only one instance, you might have a point.
But it's not. If he's not malicious, the other rule applies (not compentant).
Take your pick. I don't care, would not
actions âmaliciousâ on public mailing lists seems a bit... overblown for
> misattributing a patch to lynx.
As I noted, he's had 4 months to fix the problem, after acknowledging it.
Perhaps he's too busy to do a competant job, and should be replaced.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-isla
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:13:03AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>This is the third time this year that patch has been incorrectly
>>>ascribed to OpenBSD.
>
>>Sorry for the misundertanding. I'll fi
get annoyed when people
> are (to be generous) careless with their descriptions of security-related
> issues.
I could understand a certain annoyance, but yelling at them and calling their
actions “malicious” on public mailing lists seems a bit... overblown for
misattributing a patch
Aníbal Monsalve Salazar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>This is the third time this year that patch has been incorrectly
>>ascribed to OpenBSD.
> Sorry for the misundertanding. I'll fix the lynx changelog file.
> I just used the patch from 2.8.5-2sarge2 in stable-secur
Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 08:26:09AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
>> patch.
>>
>> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>>
>> Do you have an excuse?
> Could y
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 08:19:02AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>Hash: SHA1
>
>>Format: 1.7
>>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:41:49 +1000
>>Source: lynx
>>Binary: lynx
>>
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 08:26:09AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
> patch.
>
> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>
> Do you have an excuse?
Could you please tell me why this is such a huge deal?
/* Steina
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He can fix a previous entry and cite it in next version.
Perhaps 4 months is too short a time for him to correct it.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> >> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
>> [...]
>> > After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>> > Do you have an excuse?
>>
>> Why do you ask if y
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> [...]
>> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>> Do you have an excuse?
> Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
> Hint: You could always look at the date of the actual up
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> [...]
> > After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
> > Do you have an excuse?
>
> Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
Because Martin's actions are m
Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
[...]
> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
> Do you have an excuse?
Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
Hint: You could always look at the date of the actual update.
Maybe you just file a minor bug, that would hel
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:41:49 +1000
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source i386 sparc amd64
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge1.2
> Distribution: unst
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:20:14AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge2
> Distribut
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>* There was no time to upload 2.8.6dev19 because 2.8.6pre2 was released
> so soon.
Thanks - I put out pre.1 on Thursday since I anticipated not having time
yesterday to work on it, but decided that the feedback from pre.1 was
doable for Sunday.
SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>=20
>> Format: 1.7
>> Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:23:11 +0200
>> Source: lynx
>> Binary: lynx
>> Architecture: source powerpc
>> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge1
>> Distribution: stable-security
>> Urgency: high
On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:10:08AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 09:23:11 +0200
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source powerpc
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge1
> Distribut
From: Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Accepted lynx-cur 2.8.5-11 (i386 source all)
Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 08:27:14 -0400 (EDT)
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Format: 1.7
> > Date: Thu, 29 M
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 16:25:53 +0900
> Source: lynx-cur
> Binary: lynx-cur-wrapper lynx-cur
> Architecture: source i386 all
> Version: 2.8.5-11
I'll probably have
Package: lynx
Version: 2.8.4-2
Severity: wishlist
Quoting from /etc/lynx.cfg:
# SHOW_CURSOR controls whether or not the cursor is hidden or appears
# over the current link in documents or the current option in popups.
# Showing the cursor is handy if you are a sighted user with a poor
# terminal
Package: pstotext
Version: 1.8g-5
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Lynx does currently not honor the copiousoutput flag in /etc/mailcap.
See
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.flora.org/lynx-dev/html/month042000/msg00531.html
for the only evidence I could find about why it doesn't work.
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 07:40:19PM -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij wrote:
> [debiandoc-sgml] now builds PDF and PS output in a bi-stable loop
> (so various Makefiles can now be cleaned up and bug #134701 is closed).
I've no idea about code or what you mean by "bi-stable", so excuse me if I'm
asking a
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> > It might be nice if you could just mass-NMU (maybe to DELAYED/1-day)
> > with Build-Depends updated.
>
> Agree. I was hoping you, the pbuilder dude, may volunteer :)
Hmm... if it's not automatic, things are a bit difficult.
I'm not insi
Hi,
I just uploaded a new version of debiandoc-sgml which has its urgency set to
high to speed up things. It now builds PDF and PS output in a bi-stable loop
(so various Makefiles can now be cleaned up and bug #134701 is closed).
Thanks,
Ardo
Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sat, Apr
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 12:07:42AM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> PS: My "Debian reference" in DDP CVS/WEB needs to be packaged. Any
> volunteer? I am not Debian developer.
As I am translating it to Finnish so it is quite natural for me to package
it. Of course, one requirement is that my applica
On Sat, Apr 20, 2002 at 10:59:07PM -0700, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Some coordinated rebuild activity may be a good idea for document created
> with known problematic version (1.1.59).
So far I've only heard about the broken installation documentation in
disks-* directory of the FTP archive, and seen it
Kon'nichiwa Umekawa-san (Hi, Mr. Umekawa),
On Sun, Apr 21, 2002 at 03:42:17PM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
> Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
>
> > Since there seems to be another new debiandoc-sgml coming, it may take
> > few more days before new unstable version (1.1.66?) a
Osamu Aoki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit:
> Since there seems to be another new debiandoc-sgml coming, it may take
> few more days before new unstable version (1.1.66?) appears into testing.
>
> Some coordinated rebuild activity may be a good idea for document created
> with known pro
Hi folks,
debiandoc-sgml in testing (1.1.59) is known to be very unfriendly to
the current links/lynx. Though the maintainer (Ardo) and I think this
is browser issue, we think it is practical to fix debiandoc-sgml and
build pages with new version. And that is what is happening in unstable
but
On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 02:44:16PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> >Since ssl support (configure --with-ssl) is now integrated in the main
> >lynx source, will lynx-ssl be obsolete? And will lynx has to go to
> >non-US? Or do we still need separate version?
>
> Since
Christoph Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Since ssl support (configure --with-ssl) is now integrated in the main
>lynx source, will lynx-ssl be obsolete? And will lynx has to go to
>non-US? Or do we still need separate version?
Since lynx is GPLed, surely we shouldn't be l
Since ssl support (configure --with-ssl) is now integrated in the main
lynx source, will lynx-ssl be obsolete? And will lynx has to go to
non-US? Or do we still need separate version?
Christoph
--
Christoph Martin, Uni
Andreas Tille wrote:
> > if [ -f /tmp/$$.html ]; then
> > rm -f /tmp/$$.html
> > fi
> > /usr/lib/cgi-bin/dsearch $1 | \
> > sed 's/\/doc/\/usr\/share\/doc/g' > /tmp/$$.html
> Could you be so kind for unclever people like me to explain this
> anywhere (may be on devel) how this w
reassign 37424 lynx
thanks
Francesco Potorti` writes:
> Package: lynx-ssl
> Version: 2.8.1-1
> Severity: normal
>
> I installed lynx-ssl, which removed lynx. I then purged lynx, which
> happily removed /etc/lynx.cfg, even if lynx-ssl was installed.
>
I investigat
On Sat, 28 Sep 1996, Christian Hudon wrote:
> I'm the new maintainer for lynx... having just lynx 2.6, I'm currently
> cleaning out its bug reports. Since I'm not using a proxy server, I
> can't know it the new version fixes your problem with lynx -dump.
> So you
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Nathan L. Cutler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I noticed while installing Debian 1.1 that the lynx package is slightly
> out of date (version 2.4; newest is 2.6).
>
> I also couldn't find any documentation on it in /
I noticed while installing Debian 1.1 that the lynx package is slightly
out of date (version 2.4; newest is 2.6).
I also couldn't find any documentation on it in /usr/doc after installing
the package.
Does anybody know who the maintainer is, and/or whether this package has
been orp
Package: mc
Version: 3.2.1-1
In the present configuration, the viewer lynx for HTML files
does not work on virtual filesystems. This problem can be
solved by a small change in the mc.ext. We have to substitute
the 'lynx -dump %d' in the viewer line for HTML files
by 'lynx -dump
On Tue, 24 Sep 1996, Andrew Howell wrote:
> U slightly confused now :) Why did you report this as a bug?
> Also this got mailed to me, and I'm the old maintainer.
I was following up to Bug#4434, where Marek Michalkiewicz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> reported that he had packaged up
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> Thanks for making your version of lynx-2.6 available it certainly has some
> nice
> features.
>
> I saw in the last FAQ that the current lynx maintainer is looking for a
> person to take over maintenance of the package. Are you interes
Thanks for making your version of lynx-2.6 available it certainly has some nice
features.
I saw in the last FAQ that the current lynx maintainer is looking for a
person to take over maintenance of the package. Are you interested?
If not could I ask that you submit your update to /Incoming as an
Package: lynx
Version: 2.4-FM-960316-1
Lynx 2.6 is out, and version 2.5 has been available for quite some
time now - but we still have the outdated, pre-release version.
One user here needed a newer version (improved ISO-8859-2 support
etc.), so I packaged it myself, fixing two of the numerous
Package: lynx
Version: 2.4-FM-960316-1
See the page
http://chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk/~ijackson/bad-mailto.html> (a copy of
the page is included below).
If you load this page in lynx and select the `spong' you will enter a
dialogue offering to send mail to `ijackson%40chiark.chu.cam.ac.uk'
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> > Can't we find a way to keep programs like this an official part?
>
> We can say that contrib is an official part of Debian. And non-free as well.
> They have different support policies, but that's true wherever they are.
> I don't really see a need for a change here, but
Michael Meskes:
> > XForms is not free (no source). Anything that uses XForms is not free,
> > because you can't compile it without XFree.
>
> Okay. Thus it has to go into contrib. Right?
Yes. I think this is current policy, but I'm too lazy to check. (I just
like to rant on this issue. Facts are
Frank Neumann writes ("Re: Bug#4078: lynx should be in `contrib'"):
...
> So I'd say: Both XForms and LyX go into non-free. Compiling/linking LyX
> statically doesn't change this point, IMHO.
LyX and the XForms binary do not need to go into non-free because
AFAI
Lars Wirzenius writes:
> I guess I'm repeating myself, but oh well. In my opinion, the main Debian
> distribution (i.e., not including non-free or contrib) should consist only
> of free software, where the definition of free includes the requirement
> that source code is available and that the prog
Michael Meskes:
> I'd like to ask the other developers what they think.
I guess I'm repeating myself, but oh well. In my opinion, the main Debian
distribution (i.e., not including non-free or contrib) should consist only
of free software, where the definition of free includes the requirement
that
Michael Meskes wrote:
> Ian Jackson writes:
> > No, because packages which depend on contrib packages must go in
> > contrib too.
>
> Hmm, that wasn't what was said a while ago when we moved xforms.
>
> I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic
> behind your appr
Hi,
Michael Meskes wrote:
> I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic
> behind your approach I still think LyX should be an official part of Debian.
>
> What happens if I recompile it statically? Would it go into the standard
> tree then?
Being a Debian/m68k us
On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic
> behind your approach I still think LyX should be an official part of Debian.
Me too. However, I think that the way to accomplish that is to persuade
the XForms authors to r
Ian Jackson writes:
> No, because packages which depend on contrib packages must go in
> contrib too.
Hmm, that wasn't what was said a while ago when we moved xforms.
I'd like to ask the other developers what they think. While I see th elogic
behind your approach I still think LyX should be an of
> Subject: Bug#4078: lynx should be in `contrib'
> Package: lyx, ftp.debian.org
I assume that the subject is wrong? (Actually, I know it is, but I'm not
sure if it matters for the bug system.)
--
Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.iki.fi/liw/>
Please don&
Package: lyx, ftp.debian.org
Version: 0.9.28-1
This package depends on a non-free package (xforms).
It should be in contrib, not in the distribution proper.
Ian.
Package: lynx
Version: 2.5 and 2.4-FM-960316
OS: Debian 1.1, 17 JUN 96, with dpkg 1.2.11elf
Bug: Lynx thinks *.deb files are "text/plain",
rather than "binary". Therefor downloads corrupt *.deb files.
---
Package: lynx
Version: 2.4.2
Revision: 1
lynx -source always fails.
--
Raul
The DRAFT Lynx license would let us distribute with no problem. We just
have to urge them to move it from draft to actual status.
Bruce
--
Visit the "Toy Story" Web Page! http://www.toystory.com
69 matches
Mail list logo
