> However I've found a number of packages which use a long
> description which is more or less the _same_ as the short
> description.
This is just a thought, but perhaps the control file could
incorporate a mechanism for common description of packages
from the same source. For example, NetCDF has
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:25:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> Use ${description}, and debian/substvars. This is already supported.
> RTFM.
is there FM in the form of an example package? or can you
think of a method of finding packages that use this
technique?
dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitut
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:25:50PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:25:03PM -0700, Neil Spring
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
>> dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitution variables are
>> limited to a single line (which seems poorly suited
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 06:58:00PM +0100, Andrew McDonald wrote:
> On a similar subject, there seem to be more than a few applications
> that have had "SSL/TLS support" added, but don't do any hostname
> checking against the certificate - leaving you open to
> man-in-the-middle attacks.
(speaking
:17:43AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> > #include
> > Neil Spring wrote on Sat Sep 01, 2001 um 04:39:30PM:
> >
> > > Blaming ECN for faulty IP implementations is wrong.
> >
> > Come back to reality please. Or stay in your dream and (for example)
> > and remov
Summary:
1) why not disable ECN in kernel-image? it would be cleaner.
2) why not disable ECN in /etc/network/options? it would be
more relevant and visible than sysctl.conf.
3) can we disable ECN for joe user with the default kernel
while permitting joe custom-kernel-user to enable ECN with
one c
> > (*) wha? no kernel patch is required. The default
>
> Not really true.
After reading Herbert's mail, I understand what you were
trying to do now with the patch.
Thanks for explaining the baseconfig / postinst issues.
What a mess.
-neil
> ECN is RFC2481
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2481.txt?number=2481
the internet draft by the same authors that supercedes
rfc2481 and is a "Proposed Standard" instead of an
"Experimental Standard" is draft-ietf-tsvwg-ecn-04.
It is listed under "working group standards track" at
http://www.rfc-e
> RFC793 says
>
> Reserved: 6 bits
>
> Reserved for future use. Must be zero.
>
>
> The last statement is the cause of all confusions. s/Must/Should/ would
> have been better.
No; to be forward compatible, a TCP must set the bits
to zero. 2481 describes the operation of those bits and
from "man make-kpkg":
--flavour foo
This option is now deprecated in favour of
--append_to_version.
--append_to_version places modules in the place you expect,
and coexists well with modules. I use it all the time.
-neil
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 05:25
10 matches
Mail list logo
