Le vendredi 14 octobre 2005 à 22:23 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis a écrit :
> Frank Küster wrote:
>
> > In the particular case, the reason is something else: If the recommended
> > package B (tetex-bin) is there, it makes sense to run one of its
> > executables (mktexlsr, updmap) to register the files
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Nicolas François" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-jtoolkit
Version : 0.7
Upstream Author : David Fraser, Nick Hurley and Shayan Raghavjee of St James
Software
* URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtoolkit/
* Licen
* Simon Josefsson:
>> But isn't the "this notice [...] preserved" part problematic?
>
> Yes, I suppose you are right. I have changed the license into:
>
> The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> modification,
With my testing of packages in etch with piuparts[1], I occasionally run
into a problem that occurs in many packages in the same way. One such
problem is the creation and deletion of SSL certificates for various
services (imaps, https, etc). At the moment, the packages tend to create
the certificat
Florian Weimer writes:
> IOW, preserve the copyright statement, but not the entire notice.
What's wrong with preserving the entire notice?
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> My suggestion would be to create a tool to manage installation and
> removal of certificates. Something like this:
>
> update-ssl-certificate --create package servicename
> update-ssl-certificate --remove package servicename
I think be
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
> anyway
...except that if you have a certificate for hostname.domain.com and your
users connect to (say) imap.domain.com, they would get a warning dialog box?
/*
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
> > anyway
>
> ...except that if you have a certificate for hostname.domain.com and your
> users connect to (
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stefan Potyra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: min12xxw
Version : 0.0.8
Upstream Author : Manuel Schiller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.hinterbergen.de/mala/min12xxw/
* License : GPL
Description : Printe
hi colin,
following up on this:
On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 07:56:28PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:34:52PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > i guess i could just do it and find out, but figure asking first doesn't
> > exactly hurt. can we build/upload amd64 binary packages to
Scripsit Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only
> built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for,
> nobody will get an override disparity warning[1].
Is that even possible? The current unsta
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 10:42:19AM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 07:56:28PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 02:34:52PM -0400, sean finney wrote:
> > > can we build/upload amd64 binary packages to unstable yet?
> >
> > No, not yet.
>
> okay, thanks for le
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > No, you misunderstand. Bastian means that if some binary packages are only
> > built on some archs, not including the one the upload is taking place for,
> > nobody will get
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: lcd4linux
Version : 0.10.0+cvs20051015-1
Upstream Author : Michael Reinelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://ssl.bulix.org/projects/lcd4linux/
* License : GPL
Descr
On 10/15/05, Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
> > > anyway
> >
> > ...except that if you have
Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On 10/15/05, Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>We can't know all the names that people will use to refer to your
>>server, so this is one of the cases where you have to do stuff manually
>>anyway.
> AFAIK there's an extension to HTTP to allow multiple TLS vhos
On 10/15/05, Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> > On 10/15/05, Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>We can't know all the names that people will use to refer to your
> >>server, so this is one of the cases where you have to do stuff manually
> >>anyway
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
> anyway,
Preserving isolated security contexts for each service without having to
make the private key readable to all local users?
--
Steve Langasek
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:35:40PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
>
> > There aren't that many good reasons for having one cert per service
> > anyway,
>
> Preserving isolated security contexts for each service without having to
> make the private key
> * Simon Josefsson:
> > The Contributor grants third parties the right to
> > copy and distribute the Contribution, with or without
> > modification, in any medium, without royalty. If the
> > Contribution is modified, any claims of endorsement or
> > official status by t
The arm and m68k autobuilders are having real trouble keeping up; m68k
has been well below 90% for weeks, and arm has been plummeting
recently.
Whats up?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
21 matches
Mail list logo
