Re: ttf Depends ??

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 03:06:14PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 20-Oct-03, 13:22 (CDT), Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > What font does the program use by default? I would Depend on that one. > > If it's an X program, then it shouldn't Depend o

Re: Source only uploads?

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 09:52:14AM +1000, Brian May wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 02:17:40PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > If a broken package is not noticed in unstable, the package must not be > > particularly important to anyone. > > I disagree. > > 1. A pack

Re: faster boot

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 05:08:11AM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > System V initscripts must not return until the services they start are > ready to use. Otherwise running initscript Y after initscript X from > /etc/rc?.d/ doesn't guarantee that Y can make use of X. Providing such > guarantees is th

Re: apcupsd && apcupsd-devel

On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:39:20PM +0100, Samuele Giovanni Tonon wrote: > apcupsd was uploaded on 28 of October. > It has been divided in two packages: the main and the doc. > The doc is new so it should be added to the override file but > apcupsd (which suggest but doesn't depend on apcupsd-doc)

Re: A case study of a new user turned off debian

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 12:47:30AM -0500, Greg Stark wrote: > So all it would take to make the tools handle this would be to somehow > make apt aware of more revisions of packages. They're all in the pool > after all. Short of making some king of humongous mega-Packages file with > every revision

Re: A case study of a new user turned off debian

On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 01:11:43AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Suggested project: Create a package that, a-l-apt-move, pulls packages > out of the apt cache and creates apt repositories from them. But make it > create a new repository after every upgrade, by hooking into apt. And > auto-add these re

Re: A case study of a new user turned off debian

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 05:20:18PM +, Darren Salt wrote: > I keep some around. I'd prefer better management of this, though: ATM all > that I can do (with apt-get/aptitude) is remove all older versions or > purge the cache. I use a dead simple cron.daily script which prunes packages with an a

Re: binary patch

On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 09:52:53PM +, Anthraxz __ wrote: > When doing a package upgrade, I wondy if it should be possible to > implement a mecanism for patching binaries instead of replacing the new > one ? This could be usefull for use on a slow network connection. This would require calcula

Re: binary patch

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:50:03AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > On 2003-11-05 17:37 -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > It has been suggested many times in the past to apply a similar idea to > > the .debs themselves, rather than their contents. > > But isn't rsync suppose

Re: Looking for apt-get internals guide

On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 06:31:44PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 04:46:39PM -0500, Stephen Gran wrote: > > But, I don't see why you should need to hook into apt at all in order to do > > what you want. If the files you change are conffiles, your changes should > > be pres

Re: problems with dpkg, apt, perl etc. ( wait/waitpid)

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:56:04AM +0200, Cristian Rauta wrote: > I know, maybe -devel is inappropriate list for my problems, but i don`t > know another list for that. > I think that problem was some time ago with woody ( see bug # 206187) > > btw my debian version is sid Yes, see bug #206187

Re: Why you are wrong [Was: On linux kernel packaging issue]

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:46:50AM +1100, Glenn McGrath wrote: > A program that is CPU bound will benefit from compiler optimisations. It is not wise to make generalizations about the effects of compiler optimizations, because they vary widely from one chunk of code to the next. > Other than exp

Re: Problem with libc6 and 'chgrp / chown' remains ...

On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:18:46PM -0600, Jesse Yurkovich wrote: > With the recent libc6 bugs closed, I tried upgrading both a testing and > an unstable machine to the latest deb. You failed to specify which version exhibited the problem, and which version you upgraded to. If you are still

Re: Problem with libc6 and 'chgrp / chown' remains ...

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:09:42PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 11:49:42PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:18:46PM -0600, Jesse Yurkovich wrote: > > > > > With the recent libc6 bugs closed, I tried upgrading b

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > In early November, people asked me to package br2684ctl, a new program > that has not been officially released by the linux-atm upstream. So I > would have to pull br2684ctl from upstream CVS and include it in my > package that contains

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:52:00AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > The packages at will be sponsored into > the archive as soon as I've had a chance to review them (this week). This thing is packed full of strcpy() and strcat(), which is the sort of sloppiness th

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 08:03:28AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 02:02:49PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > This thing is packed full of strcpy() and strcat(), which is the sort of > > sloppiness that I don't like to see in a network server. It was a g

Security liabilities (Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future)

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:18:38AM +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:30:50PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > CAN-2001-1376 and CAN-2001-1377 made the rounds last Spring, with advisories > > from Red Hat, FreeBSD, SuSE, Conectiva, CERT, etc. These af

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 02:07:27AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > Also, just another question. Is there any reason why it needs to run as > root? (as I believe it does in the current Debian package) Would it be > unreasonable to ask it to run as a 'radiusd' user? I can almost gua

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:23:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > Allowing a RADIUS server to authenticate local users against /etc/shadow > is standard and expected functionality IMHO. I consider any RADIUS server > which can't authenticate against the local accounts database to be > severely bro

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:11:38AM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:23:02PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > > Allowing a RADIUS server to authenticate local users against /etc/shadow > > is standard and expected functionality IMHO. I consider any RADIUS > >

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 03:36:40PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 13:47, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > We already have such a group, named "shadow". In fact, I don't know why > > unix_chkpwd is setuid root rather than setgid shadow. > > Bug rep

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 09:25:23AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Do you really think that I'm the only person to find UNACCEPTABLE that > a package in mail suggests packages in non-free, which ARE NOT PART OF > DEBIAN? Packages are free to suggest whatever the maintainer wishes; I wouldn't even con

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:37:58PM +0200, Riku Voipio wrote: > 4) Patch apt-listchanges so that id doesn't mail about suggestions >on packages that are not available. apt-listchanges neither knows nor cares about suggests or recommends. -- - mdz

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:19:54AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote: > But our users should not be expected to look at control files in order > to know what to install, should they? Users do this all the time, with tools like aptitude, apt-cache and dpkg which display [information from] the control file.

Re: gimp1.2: gimp package suggest non-free software

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 08:32:21AM +0100, Mathieu Roy wrote: > Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a tapoté : > > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote: > > > >> I think this is a serious bug: the functionality of the free version > >> has been lowered to promote patent emcumbered package. > > > >

Re: apt-get problems

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 10:25:13AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > Below are the errors I am getting from apt-get on some machines running > recent unstable. Is this a known bug or have I screwed up something? http://bugs.debian.org/199653 It would be greatly appreciated if you could track this d

Re: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 05:52:13PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:54, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > This is so ugly. > > > > Last I looked, there wasn't much in NIS that wasn't.  I think the amount > > of pain we should put other users through on account of

Re: Bug#155583: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:59:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > You are wrong, unix_chkpwd does NIS (at least in the szenario I just > tested). After changing unix_chkpwd from 4755 root:root to 2755 > root:shadow a NIS user can not unlock the terminal he has just locked > himself with vlock any

Re: Bug#155583: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 05:59:09PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: > > The code does this: > > > if (strcmp(pwd->pw_pa

Re: Bug#155583: radiusd-freeradius history and future

On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 11:16:59PM -0500, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Matt> I think a single "Will you be using NIS?" question would be > Matt> justified; this could p

Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago

On Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 08:28:16AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: > How long did Eray wait for formal rejection? Did he receive regular > updates about the state of affairs? I don't know what Eray received via private mail, but he certainly kept the rest of debian-devel up-to-date on the process by com

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 05:42:20PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Today, it's only 17 days until the officially announced "aggressive goal" > for the release of Debian 3.1 [1]. That's a date many users know about, > but I don't see any real progress towards Debian 3.1 during the last > months. I sup

Re: Debian Enterprise?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 01:45:05AM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > I can think of a few ways to offer the above. The first is a standalone > distribution, based on debian but with various enhancements (not a novel > idea, by any means). We could either base this on testing, doing snapshot > relea

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

(trimming -release) On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 02:14:49AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, Nov 16, 2003 at 11:53:36PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > So instead, we have a system where people take individual (or small > > group) responsibility for a particular piece of softwar

emacs20 obsolete? (Re: How to find all reverse depends of a package?)

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 06:33:52PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote: > I'm curious, for instance, as to why emacs20 hasn't managed to be removed > yet. Perhaps the maintainer hasn't requested its removal? I don't see a bug report open against ftp.debian.org. -- - mdz

Re: keysigning at SCALE 2X?

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 01:14:26AM -0800, Eric Wong wrote: > I'll be attending SCALE 2X in Los > Angeles and I'm wondering if I could meet some Debian developers to get > my GPG key signed and get myself going along the New Maintainer process. Southern California D

Re: Some observations regardig the progress towards Debian 3.1

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 06:06:08PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > This might work on pure servers, but how do you manage to run XFree86 > 4.1.0 on brand-new graphics cards (e.g. integrated graphics of brand-new > Intel systems) in non-Vesa resolutions? I don't, because I don't buy motherboards with

Re: MIPS port backlog, autobuilder machines and some arrogance

On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 03:56:44PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > DDs have to sign and upload a package with a backdoor. > > On the buildd I can install a gcc or other tool that will silently add > a backdoor to anything getting compiled and the buildd admin will sign > and upload the packa

Re: MIPS port backlog, autobuilder machines and some arrogance

On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 12:54:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The whole point of signing packages is that it is not anonymous at all, but > > traceable back to the signer. Assuming the keyholder protects his key >

Re: apt-rpm article -- the features we don't have

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:06:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > Interesting article on LWN: http://lwn.net/Articles/60650/ (subscription > required) In summary, apparently apt-rpm users can now do some things > with apt that we cannot. This has been true for some time; merging the applicable parts o

Re: [debian enterprise] sub-project planning

On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 01:12:52PM -0500, Andres Salomon wrote: > For packages, we may want to focus on apt-secure > (http://monk.debian.net/apt-secure/); I'm not sure the status of it, [...] You could easily find out here: http://bugs.debian.org/203741 -- - mdz

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:07:17AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > But this kind of tampering _can_ be checked by apt before installing > the deb simply by adding a signature verifyer into the > DPkg::Pre-Install-Pkgs config option, the same mechanism > apt-listchanges already uses to display

Re: more details on the recent compromise of debian.org machines

On Fri, Nov 28, 2003 at 10:08:45AM +0100, Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In the final announcement I would add also a statement about reducing the > number of trust relations between the machines and perhaps limiting shell > access. It seems fairly clear that this was not an issue because the compromis

Re: [RFC] adding system users: which is the best way??

On Sun, Nov 30, 2003 at 01:47:29PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > * Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [031130 05:53]: > > Some daemons such as cups are written in a way that requires that they be > > able to write to their own configuration files. If such a daemon is run as > > non-root then

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 06:43:18AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:07:17AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > > > > But this kind of tampering _can_ be checked by apt before i

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:03:39AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Signed debs establish a trust chain from the buildd to the user and > from the buildd-admin/maintainer to the user as well as copy the > existing trust chain from ftp-master to the user into the deb itself. > > The Release.gp

Re: Backport of the integer overflow in the brk system call

On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Tom wrote: > Smartcards would have avoided the Debian compromise: merely having a > compromised DD box would have prevented bad guy from getting on the box. > > It's all about layers of defense. > > I think the DD's should seriously think about requirin

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 12:28:41PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 11:47:50 -0500, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > > > What kind of real world attacks do signed debs prevent? Not a > > compromised buildd, or a compromised maintainer'

Re: apt-rpm article -- the features we don't have

Just making another pass over this to associate the bug numbers for those who are interested (especially in helping with the merge effort). On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 07:06:41PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: > To install a package directly, with apt downloading any necessary > dependencies: > apt-get in

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 03:58:38PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 02:41:43PM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > What kind of real world attacks do signed debs prevent? > > > > The only one which comes to mind is a rogue Debian developer that you do

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 08:07:53AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > I wrote a little script that checks what apt things its installing > against what the control files of the debs say. I will test it with > some more fakes and then file it in the BTS. Why would you do this with a script rathe

Re: Backport of the integer overflow in the brk system call

On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 11:55:26AM -0800, Tom wrote: > Yes, but the reason it would have been efficiacious in this *particular* > instance is the hacker sniffed the password, and then logged on to > Debian's servers later at his leisure from a different PC. With a > smartcard, he would have had t

Re: Revival of the signed debs discussion

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 12:24:07AM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Release signing protects against a hostile or compromised mirror, > > network, DNS server, proxy server, and a host of other, similar attacks, > >

Re: Building Debian Completely From Source

On Fri, Dec 05, 2003 at 01:53:11PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > The nearest I have seen is fink, but I know little about it. > > Am I missing something? apt-src, apparently. -- - mdz

Re: Building Debian Completely From Source

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:10:36PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > make? You'll need make installed to make make. There are a huge number > of legitimate circular build dependencies, outlawing them won't help. There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a shell scri

Re: debsums for maintainer scripts

On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 10:42:10PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Having or not having is of the order of several 100MB. The shear > number of debs makes the impact. Fortunately, the actual effect is much smaller since nearly all packages have md5sums already. -- - mdz

Re: Building Debian Completely From Source

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 09:52:39AM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > There are quite a few, but make is a bad example, as it has included a > > shell script to build itself for just this purpose. > > But its debian/rul

Re: Building Debian Completely From Source

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 08:54:45AM -0500, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > > On Dec 8, 2003, at 11:48, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > >On Sun, Dec 07, 2003 at 04:10:36PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > > > >>make? You'll need make installed to make make.

Re: How to avoid multiple dependencies with shlibdeps

On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 07:44:48PM +0100, Adam Byrtek / alpha wrote: > I maintain a program which needs to depend on certain version of some > library (the earlier ones are incompatibile, despite soname wasn't > changed), but I would also like to use shlib:Depends for other > libraries. Shared li

Generating ~/.ssh/known_hosts from LDAP

t suitable for an # ssh known_hosts file # # BUGS: has no way to authenticate db.debian.org # # Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 12/13/2003 # import ldap conn = ldap.ldapobject.SmartLDAPObject('ldap://db.debian.org') msgid = conn.search('dc=deb

Re: Services I'd like from auric

On Sun, Dec 14, 2003 at 11:51:05PM +, Scott James Remnant wrote: > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 22:56, Kevin Rosenberg wrote: > > > I certainly miss the varied and up-to-date information that I was able > > to get from auric. Taking James Troup's advice from his announcement > > of discussing inform

Re: security enhanced debian branch?

On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 09:07:02AM -0400, Ben Armstrong wrote: > Second, any such effort shouldn't be a branch, but should be mainstreamed in > Debian proper. Please see http://wiki.debian.net/CustomDebian for a > possible approach for this sort of project. For cases where the added functional

Re: proposal: 'xterm' alternatives entry

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 08:27:34PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 08:11:42PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > > also sprach Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.10.2005 +0200]: > > > Wouldn't it be better to file bugs against the packages that don't > > > use x-

Re: proposal: 'xterm' alternatives entry

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 08:32:12PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Right, and I don't want to beat on this issue. user-mode-linux does > fix it, but Manoj's kernel-package can also create UML kernels, > which then call xterm. Thus, I would have thought this is best fixed > in kernel-patch-uml. >

Maintenance of User-Mode Linux packages

Is anyone (other than martin f krafft) interested in co-maintaining some or all of the UML-oriented packages in Debian? This includes the following source packages which I currently maintain: - user-mode-linux - kernel-patch-uml - uml-utilities Things are a bit chaotic upstream at the moment, an

Re: Maintenance of User-Mode Linux packages

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 11:14:55PM +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: > I would be interested to help. Due to my own real-life restrictions (I > don't have huge amounts of time to spend) I would probably try helping > with uml-utilities though. IANADD yet though. These packages need someone with a lot

Re: an idea for next generation APT archive caching

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 02:11:44AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > Here's an idea I just had about apt-proxy/apt-cacher NG. Maybe this > could be interesting, maybe it's just crap. Your call. My position on special-purpose proxy caches for APT is that general-purpose proxy caches (like squid) see

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 07:22:12PM +0200, Wesley W. Terpstra wrote: > Can this go into main? This risks serious practical problems. If your package is routinely built with a compiler other than the Debian default, problems which would arise from doing so can go easily undetected. Someday, someo

Re: Reproducible, precompiled .o files: what say policy+gpl?

On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:16:17AM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > The only difference is in *performance*. If there are other differences, > then there is a bug in one of the two compilers. First, both of the compilers involved are known to have bugs. Second, this is not necessarily true.

Re: bin==1

The definitions need to be corrected. I would change: binbinAdministrative user with some restrictions daemon daemon Subprocess special privileges To: binbinLegacy uid/gid daemon daemon Legacy uid/gid Cheers, Matt On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 09:33:36AM -0500, George Kraft IV

Re: C++ ...

library from being included in the LSB. Cheers, Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot error

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 11:54:34PM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > Could someone please help me interpret this clisp 2.28 build error: > > $dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot > dpkg-buildpackage: source package is clisp > dpkg-buildpackage: source version is 1:2.28-1 > dpkg-buildpackage: source maintainer

Bug#156298: ITP: gatos-km -- video4linux drivers for ATI video cards from the GATOS project

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-11 Severity: wishlist * Package name: gatos-km Version : (CVS) Upstream Author : Vladimir Dergachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://gatos.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description : video4linux drivers for

Bug#156300: ITP: avview -- TV viewing and capture software for ATI video cards from the GATOS project

Package: wnpp Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-11 Severity: wishlist * Package name: avview Version : 0.9.5 Upstream Author : Vladimir Dergachev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://gatos.sourceforge.net/ * License : GPL Description : TV viewing and capture so

Re: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot error

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 02:05:23PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote: > > > > chmod +x debian/rules > > Rather 'chmod +x /usr/bin/make' according to the error message. Weird. It is a confusing (confused) error message. The permission p

Re: Pin and apt

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~-> apt-cache policy icewm icewm-common > icewm: > Installed: (none) > Candidate: 1.2.0-1 > Version Table: > 1.2.0-1 0 > 500 http://debian.mirrors.easynet.fr sid/main Packages > 999 file:

Re: Pin and apt

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 07:50:31PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: > Le Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:32:19PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman a ?crit: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 05:11:00PM +0200, Julien Danjou wrote: It looks > > like you are providing the same package versions from both sources.

Re: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot error

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 07:52:04PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 01:29:19PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 02:12:25PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote: > > > Rather 'chmod +x /usr/bin/make' according to the error messa

Re: New to the list, and need info

On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 08:47:02PM -0400, Individual . . wrote: > I have subscribed to this list because I am nearing the end of my list > of possibilities. > > I am searching for a mailing list that will tolerate my simple c++ > questions. > > More specifically, I want to learn how to use lib

Re: MailMan Security patch for Woody Broken?

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 07:23:05PM +1000, David Fisher wrote: > I believe that the just released MailMan security fix for woody may be broken. > > I am running a Debian woody server which runs several MailMan lists which > have been running sweetly until just recently. The only thing I can thi

Re: MailMan Security patch for Woody Broken?

On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 04:57:33PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote: > I can't look at mailman right now, but some observations that might > help: > > - with python 2.1: > > >>> 'barstring'.foo() > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "", line 1, in ? > AttributeError: foo > > - with

Re: MailMan Security patch for Woody Broken?

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 06:13:37PM +1000, David Fisher wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matt Zimmerman writes: > > > >precedence = '' > > > >does it fix the problem? > > I'll try that and report back when I get time to, which is ver

Re: How to transition to G++ 3.2 wthout any breakage

On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 06:28:27PM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > HAHAHAHAHA. No. > > > > .__. > > _|doogie|_ <-- dpkg hat > > > No because of technical reasons, or because it's too much work? No because it is overcomplicated and dpkg has no business making this kind of on-the-fly adjust

Re: How to transition to G++ 3.2 wthout any breakage

On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 05:36:04PM +0200, Luca Barbieri wrote: > > No because it is overcomplicated > This isn't a problem for you, I'm doing the work (I have already managed > to write a program to detect the ABI, a wrapper generator and patched dpkg > to move libraries; I still have to do shlibs

Apache2

ache2 package in a state of extreme development? Matt -- Matt Kern http://www.undue.org/

Re: Why am I receiving still mails from this list?

On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 05:18:52PM +0200, Arvid Warnecke wrote: > I try to unsubscribe from this list for about a week now. I just got the > message that I am no member of the list anymore, but still get the > mails. I tried to unsubscribe again, but I got the message, that this is > not possible

Re: Why am I receiving still mails from this list?

On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 12:34:36AM -0400, Joe Drew wrote: > On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:34, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > Read the instructions at the bottom of each message that you receive > > from this list. > > Which he obviously did, given that he stated that he unsubscrib

Re: When bind9 reinstalls, no db.root

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:49:19PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > For example... _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies options which are different from the compiled-in defaults. For specific examples, see almost any program on your system with a global config file. --

Re: When bind9 reinstalls, no db.root

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 04:23:16PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:06:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > _Any_ program whose default (Debian) configuration file specifies > > options which are different from the compiled-in defaults. > > > >

Re: When bind9 reinstalls, no db.root

On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 05:10:58PM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > This terse reply is obviously inappropriate. If you are annoyed, stop > writing. No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and tactful response. > I was asking for real examples in order to discuss how the cas

Re: When bind9 reinstalls, no db.root

On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 10:26:45AM -0700, Marc Singer wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 08:44:04AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > No less appropriate than your one-line dismissal of a reasonable and > > tactful response. > > So let me get this straight. You equate "s

Bug#159037: general: Time Problem

Package: general Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-31 Severity: normal Tags: sid I don't know what is causing this problem but all I know is that I have narrowed it down to being caused either by a package or by the install system. I installed from the woody install disks then upgraded to sid. What

Bug#159037: general: Time Problem

On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 11:07:54PM -0700, Daniel Schepler wrote: > "Matt Filizzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Package: general > > Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-31 > > Severity: normal > > Tags: sid > > > > I don't

Bug#159037: general: Time Problem

On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:47:06AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: > "Matt Filizzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Package: general > > Version: N/A; reported 2002-08-31 > > Severity: normal > > Tags: sid > > > > I don't

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:36:12AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 11:51:34AM -0500, Matt Zimmerman wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:06:40AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > > I don't believe that transfer will be CPU bound, but rather network an

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 08:37:19PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:48:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >> and if I can change social norms of conduct so that

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

ct, and you a being of rare character. But if I may quote you again: >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 12:48:51AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: >> >> and if I can change social norms of conduct so that I would nto be >> >> hurt in the future? ...it certainly sounds as i

Re: Are we losing users to Gentoo?

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 10:46:44PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > >>"Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Matt> I read quite well, thank you. Such personal attacks would not seem to > fit > Matt> with your lofty philosophy of elevatin

Re: debian-installer status 2002-11-22

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 06:16:11PM +0200, Samuli Suonpaa wrote: > Are you aware of the fact that EVMS will not be included in Linux kernel? Are you aware of the fact that EVMS is being adapted to work with device-mapper instead of the EVMS kernel runtime? http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   >