On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 11:54:05AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Could you elaborate on that? Why is it so painful?
> Probably because you need maintain packages for both unstable and
> testing at the same time.
This is exactly what happened
On Sat, Oct 23, 2004 at 08:56:45AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> Frank Küster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Oh, it would be easy for me to break the tetex-packages (and cause lots
> > of FTBFS bugs) just by applying all the great ideas about improved
> > packaging that I have in mind. No upstrea
On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:14:57PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> But that could as well be achieved by parsing the configuration files:
That is exactly what packages were the Debconf configuration winds up in
a configuration file have to do. However, Debconf answers will not
always wind up in con
On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 02:07:36PM +, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> Please stop following up to this ITP and telling me you don't understand
> the description unless you have prior experience of L2TP in an ISP
> environment. If you don't know what L2TP is or how an LNS fits into the
> picture, th
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 04:09:04AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Is a bit of flash or rom that much bigger than ram? Isn't most of the
> space in the dongle air or filling material?
Space is space on the board (not to mention the complexity of the board)
as well as three dimenisonal space.
On Sun, Dec 12, 2004 at 04:54:14PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> - why is dmesg 0644? This is not really a problem, but do users
> need access to the boot messages?
The log buffer can normally be read using the dmesg utility (or similar
code) as well as via the log file.
--
"You grabbed
On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 02:26:51PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Mark Brown: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> x86info: x86info.1.gz
This isn't Debian-specific since I contributed it back upstream. I've
contacted upstream about relicensing it under the GP
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:46:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> With the proviso that static linking against libc6 is more likely to
> introduce ABI problems via nss than just dynamically linking against an old
> libc6 ABI (i.e., GLIBC_2.0 or GLIBC_2.1).
Not to mention the LGPL too. Static lin
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:25:15PM +0100, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> However, now we've suddenly discovered that _other_ programs get confused by
> this! In particular, if you use an NFSv4-patched mount, it does a
> gethostname() and resolves that, which returns 127.0.0.1, which in turn makes
>
On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 11:21:09AM -0600, John Hasler wrote:
> Mark Brown writes:
> > ...NIS needs to hand out the IP address of the machine...
> Machines don't have IP numbers. Interfaces have IP numbers. Every machine
Actually, that's not quite the case (as a number o
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 02:57:25PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> Considered that ftbfs bugs for scc architectures are not going to be
> RC any more, people will stop fixing them, thus the scc architectures
Some may, but some would continue to be helpful. My experience doing
porting work was that pr
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 09:35:38PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> That suggests that FTBFS bugs for SCC archs will be ignored just as
> long, 1/2 - 3/4 of the planed release cycle. Now imagine a bug in fsck
> that destroys data being left open for so long.
In my experience doing this sort o
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:50:04AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> What that actually means is that when porters want to stabilise, they'll
> be able to simply stop autobuilding unstable, fix any remaining problems
> that are a major concern, and request a snapshot be done. That'll result
...
>
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:54:24AM +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> If you wanted to make the decision _with_ the input of developers, why
> did all the powers that be vehemently deny that the number of
> architectures was a problem for the release schedule, right until
> everyone turned on a platt
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:26:33AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Mark Brown wrote:
> >Would it also be possible for porters to update the snapshots in some
> >manner beyond having an apt source equivalent to the security archive
> >added by d-i?
> It'd be possi
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:01:06PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On some mirrors?
> -> Not all mirrors have to mirror all ports.
The mirroring part of the proposal is effectively just a proposal to
rearrange the archive in order to make this easy for mirror admins.
--
"You grabbed my hand and we
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> maintenance of
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:27:33PM -0500, Jay Berkenbilt wrote:
> impediments (like licensing problems), do people generally think that
> it's reasonable to do this even if the other packages aren't really
> part of the upstream package? If so, are there usual mechanisms for
> doing this? What a
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 08:10:03PM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> It turns out that there is no need for them to be hurt at all. Lone
> can carry on working as before and find a co-maintainer who won't get
> in his way. But when Lone falls off his horse he'll be glad that Tonto
> is nearby.
...
On Fri, Dec 23, 2005 at 08:40:22AM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> The other side, and we've seen some people say this in this thread already,
> is that even if a maintainer asks for help, he may not get any - IIRC nis
> was one such package, and I claim that its still used by quite a few, so
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:39:01PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> To prepare for the eventual removal of makedev, I propose that packages
> currently depending on it will add an alternative dependency to udev.
> Also, policy should be amended accordingly.
It might be useful to tell the maintainers
On Fri, Dec 30, 2005 at 04:12:23PM +0100, Michal Piotrowski wrote:
> I have noticed that directory
> debian/dists/experimental/main/binary-i386 is empty.
> Where is new "experimental" repository?
Unless there is a problem with the mirror you are using that directory
should contain a Release and P
On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 07:11:26PM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I suspect a similar system for Debian might increase visibility and
> commitment from a large set of users.
With the exception of the web forums and most of the commercial stuff
that does sound rather like debian.org.
--
"Yo
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 11:03:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> However, to the degree that the Ubuntu patches have these sorts of
> gratuitous changes that shouldn't be merged with Debian, the patch
> database quickly becomes useless. The current patch system is only useful
> if a maintainer can
On Tue, Jan 25, 2005 at 03:58:55PM -0600, Jacob Schroeder wrote:
> I hear iBooks have a much better value for the money. Not just from a
> power perspective, but also because the PowerBooks get to looking ugly
> really fast. This is due to the iBook case being made from a nice
> durable plastic wh
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:26:28PM +0200, Wouter van Heyst wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 03:01:34PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm not suggesting that we claim that firmware is Free, but putting it
> > in non-free is:
> > (a) going to result in an awkward situation for installation, and
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 04:57:09PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > I've suggested before that creating a separate section for firmware may
> > be the best solution.
> You have not described how that would differ from using 'non-free'.
One example:
On Sun, Apr 03, 2005 at 01:19:32AM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Mark Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > One example: with our current package management tools once you've got
> > an apt source in your configuration the packages it provides will start
> > to
On Sat, Apr 02, 2005 at 06:15:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > This does present certain logistical problems for producing installers.
> A free kernel can't support that hardware. It's a shame, but it's
> true.
Do you mean to say a free in
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 11:36:22AM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> Aren't scc.debian.org (or perhaps various different hosts for each SCC) part
> of
> the plan in the email? I don't think anyone wants to break alioth further.
The plan for scc.debian.org was for unstable plus snapshots of that. If
On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 12:15:38AM +0200, Piotr Roszatycki wrote:
> I'd like to ask one more time: where is mailing list, the repository,
> project page? It doesn't seem like open project.
> Cooperation? A little less conversations, more action, please. Do you know
> "The cathedral and the bazaar
On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 04:04:44AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 07:57:13PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > And then there is this yada packaging you used.
> Not that I was a friend of yada, but AFAIK it's allowed for a maintainer
> to use whatever tools he wants for his pa
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 01:33:52PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> I didn't know a bug can have more than one submitter.
> What's the syntax for the email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for adding a second
> submitter?
Not entirely the answer you're looking for, but submit a duplicate bug
and merge it.
--
On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 04:01:52PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mark Brown ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050504 16:00]:
> > Not entirely the answer you're looking for, but submit a duplicate bug
> > and merge it.
> No, don't do that.
It's ugly as hell and may well
On Mon, May 23, 2005 at 06:14:45PM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> I was refering to bugs without any activity (ignored bugs).
If you mean bugs with no response ever rather than bugs that have just
not seen any reponse recently saying something like "no response" rather
than "no activity
On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 02:01:55AM +0300, Cesar Martinez Izquierdo wrote:
> I think Debian would be healthier if tags were properly used in DBTS (as this
> helps others to also fix bugs).
I'd be really surprised if the major obstacle we're facing with regard
to bug fixing were procedural things
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 12:34:21PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> But setting up autobuilders doesn't require a new infrastructure
> (and shouldn't require more than half a year).
> Wasn't the infrastructure a prerequisite for woody and is working?
It turned out that the central part of the existing
On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 10:48:38PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 11:48:54AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > It turned out that the central part of the existing infrastructure
> > didn't scale up well enough to cope with the new architectures in sarge.
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:40:04PM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:25:01AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > If Debian treated our upstreams this way, I'd be suprised if we ever got
> > any patches accepted upstream.
> Debian does, in fact, treat most of its upstreams precisel
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 07:49:39AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 12:47:30AM -0700, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > The same logic applies to many bugs as well. Would it really be better to
> > have an open bug report in debbugs, than a patch on people.ubuntu.com?
> I'd prefer
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 12:32:14AM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> occasions that their patch policy is less than optimal. While some
> personally agree with me, it's their policy and unfortunately it won't
> change... however, maybe there's still hope, now that more people are
Has there been a
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 08:14:45PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Daniel Holbach]
> > Do you have a particular case in mind?
> I'm not going to provide examples, no.
Would it be possible to provide some general description of the sorts of
problem they see?
--
"You grabbed my hand and we f
On Mon, Jun 20, 2005 at 05:58:11PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Do you have any evidence to support yout claim that big mail servers are
> configured to handle gray-listing servers differently from other mail
> servers?
Not quite the same thing as Pierre was describing but some mail server
sof
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 08:05:21PM +0200, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> True. But for example, is the current apt-get capable of contacting
> another mirror if and only if the primary fails?
For package downloads apt will try the sources in the order listed in
sources.list, only trying subsequent on
On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 01:06:05PM -0600, Katrina Jackson wrote:
> Okay here is another honest question: Do you really honestly think not
> having co-maintainers for base packages is ever a good idea? What if
> someone is busy? You don't really feel safe noticing your base packages
> aren't b
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 07:19:19PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> Yes, and I wanted to know why he thought that is the case. I believe
> Christoph has given a good account of the reasons. If you have
> anything to add, please do!
There's also the fact that well known teams like the installer and
On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 03:34:34PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 02, 2006 at 09:09:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > Care to describe how without using your SCM but apt-get source instead ?
> apt-get source packagename
> Really, what is the problem here?
With a system like dpatch
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 07, 2006 at 11:39:51AM +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> > * E-mail generally has a "wider reach" -- it gets past corporate
> > firewalls, (my company has never allowed external nntp connections),
> > works even on
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 02:11:21PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> No, you don't #ifdef all the users, you write multiple versions of a a
> generic function that hides the differences, and compile the appropriate
> one. Read the reference I gave.
> Sure, you *could* do this with autoconf driving
On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 06:48:31AM -0400, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote:
> Out of curiousity, if this is such a good thing why are Alioth and
> SourceForge the only two services (of the dozens of mailing lists from
> half dozen or more services) which use this setup? Also, why is the
> error message r
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 01:44:57PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.09.05.1330 +0200]:
> > This may be a good time to remind maintainers that often
> > a versioned conflict may be more appropriate than a versioned
> > dependency.
> Right.
Most of
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:28:43AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Sep 2006, Mark Brown wrote:
> > invoke-rc.d. IIRC doing something more obvious caused upgrade issues at
> > the time due to issues with having both sysv-rc and file-rc.
> invoke-rc.d wa
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 07:41:53PM +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> As a conclusion and combining both, I would really like to unsderstand
> why so many fellow developers insist on using LOW priority NOTES in
> their debconf templates and use them in maintainer scripts.
Speaking for my own packa
On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 06:28:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christian Aichinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Maintaining such information somewhere within the library package would
> > be possible, but that sounds like a more complex plan, and I doubt that
> > many library maintainers know
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:45:16AM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
> It appears that dpkg-deb does not exec gzip, and it's not dynamically
> linked with anything except glibc. I suppose that it's statically linked
> against zlib1g or something like it. So the question is, how can the
> exact compression a
Followup to the other lists too...
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:15:21PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 03:45:16AM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
>
> > It appears that dpkg-deb does not exec gzip, and it's not dynamically
> > linked with anything except gli
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 06:50:53AM -0700, Ian Bruce wrote:
> It turns out that the zlib1g-dev package contains a program called
> "minigzip" in source form. This is what's needed; "minigzip -9"
> reproduces exactly the compression used by dpkg-deb, unlike regular
> gzip.
This may not produce iden
On Mon, Oct 23, 2006 at 08:45:01AM +0200, Stig Sandbeck Mathisen wrote:
> Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > IIRC, he sent an email out a few days ago saying that
> > http://planet.debian.net/ now serves most of the purpose of DWN.
> Unfortunately, at least for me, planet.debian.net cont
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:51:18PM +0100, David Weinehall wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2006 at 11:10:52PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > It is my opinion that we would be better off dumping this
> > whole shell specification thing in policy, standardizing on bash, and
> > let it go.
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2006 at 01:41:18PM -0500, Matthias Julius wrote:
> I have started doing some l10n work about a month ago. Some of the
> bugs I filed have not seen any reaction from the maintainer. While
> that is not yet surprising I came across a number of l10n bugs
> providing translations tha
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:01:58AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Dec 2006 11:08:56 +0100, Andreas Metzler
> >Afaik there are no changes in behavior. blocks are only
> >informational.
> If this is true, it is a _TOTAL_ surprise for me. We need better
> documentation.
IIRC it also generates
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 11:47:57AM +0100, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> I have at least one server machine where allow-hotplug does not reliably
> bring up the interface ever.
I had a bug report from a NIS user which turned out to be a result of
them experiencing the same symptoms. They said they mig
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:42:30PM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> FTBFS. All of those you can probably summarize under bit-rot. The
> Debian-amd64 team has now started doing some aggressive porter NMUs
> (policy allows them after 7 days so don't come screaming if we NMU
> some month old bug)
On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 10:27:45AM +0200, Frank K?ster wrote:
> Would it be acceptable to build bacula (or any other package with that
> problem) in an etch environment, or on sid with manually installed
> libssl from etch, and upload that to unstable? After checking that it
> works in unstable,
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:06:28AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Well, how do I know if I have to deviate from the debhelper scripts at
> some point in the future? In fact, if I bump up the compat level, I
> might very well need to change my scripts.
That's a bit different: updating the debhelper
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 04:18:58PM +0300, Ozgur Karatas wrote:
> ps and top command gives the ram state. i am doing this to see cpu's load
> and usage.
top reports these. For example:
| Tasks: 112 total, 2 running, 109 sleeping, 1 stopped, 0 zombie
| Cpu(s): 0.0% us, 0.0% sy, 0.0% ni,
On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 01:42:08AM +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> 4. Make it a runtime startup decision. More work to implement, but for
> things like this, it seems like a reaonably sane choice.
Having done this before it's fairly straightforward to achieve, even if
you can't assume libc support
On Sun, Jan 23, 2005 at 10:53:48AM -0600, Steve Greenland wrote:
> /etc/default/foo. I could tolerate it if packaged defaulted *on*, but it
> seems the habit is to default off. And more importangly, as others have
> said (every single time this comes up), there is an *existing* mechanism
> to acco
on
> home-made apple pie", but nobody has packaged that (yet).
IIRC, it was this very package that prompted the last discussion about
setting up a data section. What came of that?
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.
.ac.uk/users/broonie/debian which comes with my usual
"I haven't tried to install this let alone use it, but it built cleanly"
warning.
You'd probably get an answer faster by either contacting the maintainer
(me) or reporting a bug.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
uld expect. Old users get confused, and new users get confusing help
from old users.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpd2BtnVEEIR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
editted. Syntax is inspired
by java and yacc or lex. The implementation is intentionaly kept simple,
and no C actual code parsing is done.
The license is GPL.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp:
lays and
ORBS also blacklist sites for other reasons, such as if their probes are
firewalled out. This will, for example, catch sites that automatically
firewall out sites that attempt to relay through them - the site notices
the first check, blocks the rest and gets added to the list.
--
Mark B
ge to Incoming. However, I'm not particularly
attached to it (I only packaged it because I need it to build another
package) so you're welcome to take it.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS
y RSS and DUL too.
That roughly matches my experience - ORBS blocks far too much to use in
more than an advisory manner, but the other RBLs don't create any
problem. Of course, neither of us sees the traffic Debian is seeing and
that's what any decision needs to be based upon.
--
Mark Bro
ugh I'm not sure I want to.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpkVlFPiocmb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
to them and what they can do to work around this
situation.
Not that I would advocate doing this in the first place.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgptNT0Xpql6Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:40:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Okay, 62.43% isn't so bad, but it doesn't really take that much effort to
> vote in Debian, IMHO.
You've just got to decide how to vote first.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpin
ckages of PGCC?
| A: No. While some people have expressed an interest in them, nobody has
| actually done the work yet. If you are interested the people to speak
| to are probably the Debian gcc maintainers.
If you want to use it it's pretty trivial to install from source.
--
Mark B
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:00:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > You should at the very least mention why you're closing the bug report.
> Did you bother to read my close message? Obviously not. I did in
ot to
mention do some benchmarking to verify that you're actually getting
something worthwhile from the exercise.
Most programs aren't that compute-intensive, and gcc is more reliable -
just blindly using pgcc is probably not a good idea.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:57:51PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> All statically updated BTS pages are broken, please see DWN for details.
Might it be an idea to put a notice about this on the web page? It'd
avoid a lot of confusion.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying
n I
tried a Potato install).
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpwyn7TBTOB2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
#x27;s also the fact that IP rights work much better if you make an
effort to enforce them. (IANAL, of course)
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
--
To UN
On Wed, Sep 06, 2000 at 08:23:40PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Static pages are known to be outdated.
I'm sure I asked this previously, but could we not add a note to that
effect on at least the front page?
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid gr
's from being too geeky myself, but Branden's explanation
> (the recipient of the error message is not welcome on *THEIR* Internet
> under the reasoning that they're ... refusing connections from machines
It was the bit about "dialup trash" - inability to get revers
information for anyone without
access to the repository. That's a hassle when you get maintainer
changes and makes the packaghe source itself much less useful than it
could be.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
t appear.
If you CC it it will - that's just a regular mailing list posting. If
you use X-Debbugs-Cc it will go through the BTS first.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.
ways seem to hit each and every mailing list (or at
least, a large number of them), which makes each spam much more
noticable.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
l off the
> remaining attempts.
Without killing all the messages crossposted to all the port lists (andu
usually one or two others). :-)
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
It's also binary-compatible with 2.95.2.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgpxUWpYjngZj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t; > list'' easy. But it already is easy. Reasonable mail programs have two
> > separate ``reply'' commands: one that replies directly to the author
> > of a message, and another that replies to the author plus all of the
> > list recipients.
> This do
e saying is that you're purposely ignoring people's
> Mail-Followup-To when it suits you, while insisting that others abide by
> yours? That sounds kind of ridiculous to me.
OTOH, the behaviour in the absence of any Mail-Followup-To: should be to
reply to either the list or the se
> Have you looked at the package john? AFAIK john can do anything crack
> can do.
john is a single process cracker - it can't distribute the load over
multiple CPUs and multiple machines.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardi
to people's attention it seems silly not to use it.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
uld be more useful for them to conflict with each other
and just include the man executable directly.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgp6z1ZrqSaQO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
t does save it itself to
/etc/lilo.conf.old (although it does this each time it's reconfigured so
you'll only have the previous lilo.conf in there).
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFS
and comes from. The unenforced standard is that only the submitter
and the maintainer responsible for the package should close a bug.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societi
ctually used unstable. Besides, there's
still no guarantee that people are actually going to read the warnings
or even that they will be warned before whatever it is causes the
breakage.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/
EUFShttp://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 09:20:34AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> However, I've seen problems caused by the use of the short name only in
> /etc/hostname (mostly mail-related, maybe?) and I systematically change
> this to hold the FQDN on my systems. Haven't filed a bug about this,
> because I'm
1 - 100 of 401 matches
Mail list logo
