On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached the
> security team and offered to prepare an upload. I was effectively told
> that this isn't done, and because it isn't done, most testing users don't
> have secur
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:15:04PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is documented prominently on the website. If people do not look
> > before they leap, there is little we can do.
>
> Sure we can. We can consider the lack of security updates
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:18:22PM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I think that users would react rather negatively to having packages
> > (ones that they use) effectively disappear from their system, but the
> > o
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:53:31PM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> Then people can bitch and moan about package X not being available and
> can do something to fix it (eg. finally start doing security updates
> for testing). Or they can just put up with it. But either way, their
> box wont be
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:14:20PM +0200, Björn Stenberg wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There is no shortage of opinions about what "we" should do, but there is
> > unlikely to be any action until an "I" arises who actually does the
> > work.
&g
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:18AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
> So perhaps the replacement is a better way of doing it. Then the
> question is whether you replace it with a dummy empty one, or a
> essentially identical working one, except containing a very loud
> warning.
Replacement has it
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:20:08AM +0300, Chris Leishman wrote:
>
> On Thursday, May 15, 2003, at 12:42 AM, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >The idea being discussed, as I understand it, is to have fewer security
> >vulnerabilities in 'testing'. The only sane way to acco
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 07:12:15PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> So here's an alternative that would actually work:
>
> Take the harden package, or create something similar: a package that
> conflicts with all versions of packages with known security holes. Note
> that harden currently does not track
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:24:08AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> What about having a dummy package "testing-security", consisting of
> nothing but a huge list of versioned conflicts (and perhaps a few hints in
> /usr/share/doc/ about how to setup a mixed stable/testing or
> testing/unstable apt so
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:06:20PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:12:08AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > If it just comes down to applying patches, and doing the rebuilds then
> > > it seems to be the kind of job a small team cou
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 01:10:35PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > This is an excellent point. Testing users do not expect updates from
> > securit.debian.org, so there is no reason that they need to be kept
>
On Thu, May 15, 2003, someone calling themselves "LapTop006" wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman arranged a set of
> bits into the following:
> > There are no mirrors of security.debian.org, and have not been for as long
> > as I have b
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 03:19:02PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:59:49PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Do you honestly think would be a good idea to use testing-security this way
> > on a continual basis?
>
> Yes, I do. I think we should relea
On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 12:08:02PM -0400, Victor Torrico wrote:
> I compiled and ran the debian kernel-source-2.5.69 package. It boots OK,
> however, none of he modutil functions work. I keep getting the following
> error message: "QM_MODULES: Function not implemented" whenever I try things
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 10:40:10AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:06:47AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > There's that "we" again. Why not unstable, too?
>
> I'd have no problem with that.
You don't seem to have any problem s
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 01:59:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 10:28:48PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Outstanding DSA's are not the matter at hand;
>
> Sure they are: if you're complaining that the security team already has
> to
On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:41:47PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 11:06:25PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem is finding competent volunteers to do the work.
>
> I must have missed that post to debian-devel-announce where the security
> guys call for respo
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 02:08:28AM +1200, Nick Phillips wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 01:27:12PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 10:03:32AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> >
> > > Figuring that a security upload would be preferable, I approached
On Sat, May 17, 2003 at 05:57:54PM +0200, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> apache: mime.types needs updating.
On my system at least, /etc/apache/mime.types is a symlink to
/etc/mime.types.
--
- mdz
the
Internet/Usenet etiquette and behaviour things it only serves 1 purpose - to
make the people spouting it look like old fools when 99.999% of the users
these days don't give a damn about the 'rules' dreamt up by academics in
1985!
Matt.
herefore I'll dismiss it. Society evolves and with it rules change, we need
to accept this and see what evolves - if it turns out to be bad then limits
will have to be applied, but I'm not seeing a complete state of anarchy
break out yet...
Matt.
to limit crap in your inbox and still participate
fully with others on the Internet.
Matt.
t then doesn't happen again, as people realise why the 'rules' were set
> up in the first place.
Maybe, I suspect not though.
Matt.
ello,
Finding it is not the problem. As I stated "and if they did they probably
wouldn't care" means that its one thing to read it, but what if they don't
act on it?
Matt.
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 09:33:48AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Looking at woody in fact, it appears to only exceptions appear to be
> HPPA and IA64:
>
> kernel-source-2.2.22 - Linux kernel source for version 2.2.22
> kernel-source-2.4.10 - Linux kernel source for version 2.4.10
> kernel-source-2.4.
On Sun, May 18, 2003 at 12:06:21PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> There is also a mechanism to order the order in which
> kernel-patches are applied -- so if, say, a m68k kernel image
> maintainer wanted to create a patch relative to the i386 patches,
> they could depend on that patch,
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 05:13:54AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Definately. This should be done if only to avoid multiple copies of a 27M
> bzip2 archive wasting everyone's disk space and network bandwidth.
>
> Also regarding the i386 arch, multiple patches would be good. Something
> in the i3
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 10:02:58AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I'll start here:
>
> Kernel package policy:
"kernel image" to avoid confusion between kernel source, kernel headers,
kernel modules, etc.
> --
>
> * It should only exist one kernel-source package.
> * Every mo
On Mon, May 19, 2003 at 04:19:31PM +0200, Richard Atterer wrote:
> No, sorry - I'm afraid we'll first have to complete our search for the
> sheets of ".." before we can work on
> your request.
Do you realize that every time this is mentioned in the list archives, it
gets worse?
--
- mdz
communicate on a wider basis (perhaps
for work?) cannot afford to drop mail to /dev/null and so will have to get
used to it I think.
Matt.
an to avoid some of the interaction that
acompanies it.
>It seems you just want to send HTML mail, and not feel sorry for it.
Never said I wanted to and the thread was wider scoped than just HTML email.
Matt.
d others) are a pretty exclusive policy as there are
such a myriad of rules that can be broken that its use is more to make the
other party look stupid compared to the technical knowledge of their
accuser.
Matt.
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 05:45:21PM +0200, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Is there any particular reason to have /lib/ld-linux.so.* exxecutable?
> If it is used only as a proper library, it need not be executable.
>
> The problem is that this breaks the "noexec" mount option. If /foo is
> mounted noexec, th
On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 08:00:21PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> I don't see any objection to symlinking if both packages are created of
> the same sourcepackage, the second one depends on =first-package-version
> and (naturally) have the same copyright.
It makes it impossible to extract the chan
woe-be-tide you if you put some
of the in the signature at the end.
[Insert witty riposte about how crap this thread is here...]
>Maybe it's because people who don't understand netiquette really do look
>stupid.
Perhaps, but then this comment does support the elitist accusation.
Matt.
On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 09:04:05AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> To make it more interesting, Matt Zimmerman revealed[2] that merging all
> kernel source packages would save space of one CD from our archive and our
> CD images.
I was probably exaggerating slightly; I did not do the cal
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 09:02:17AM -0400, Timothy H. Keitt wrote:
> Craig Sanders wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 05:32:45PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > (the only times i want to do that is when paranoia makes me start up a new
> > navigator binary
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 02:45:57PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The BTS got several of these...
FYI, I tried to contact him several times before NMUing commonc++, and got
neither bounce nor response. Other bug report logs against his packages
seem to indicate that he has been MIA for som
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 11:18:35AM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
> > deborphan might be tweakable to do this. pkg-order could also be useful.
> > Apt 0.5 now has a python interface, and possibly a perl interface, so
> > that's probably usable too.
>
> Deborphan is nearly perfect
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 01:31:19PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> It would be great to have an automated system where one could subscribe to
> bugs for a particular package without having all the hassles of filling a
> bug and waiting an answer. And having something automated would allow me
> to
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 03:40:56PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I agree that a system like this would be nice, but until
> Matt> that day, you can subscribe to debian
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 10:55:22PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Christian Hammers wrote:
> > Would it be good to have a package task-debian that had dependencies to such
> > "meta" packages (including the latest version of apt,debconf and dpkg) to
> > ensure that users always get the latest Debian "
On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:51:45PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:36:21AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > Unless, of course, you can do your filtering on the mail server, as I do.
>
> and how many isps allow this?
Some IMAP servers support
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:22:47AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 10:29:58PM -0600, Dwayne C. Litzenberger wrote:
> > I suspect it's already been discussed before, so I'll ask instead of
> > flaming. (See! I can learn!)
>
> many times before.
>
> > Why does a server auto
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 10:03:49AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > ...what would people think of making a task-emacs and moving both tetex
> > and emacs out from standard?
>
> As an emacs user I think this is an excellent idea, but I worry that
> such stretching of the defin
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 08:50:06PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Is it possible to keep an eye upon package consistency on the
> hosts 'http.us.debian.org'?
>
> Each time I run 'apt-get update', some of the package lists on my
> machine seem to be outdated, even if the last update has been done
>
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 12:16:16PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> [whose words are these? unattributed in your mail]
> > Sorry, but this is broken. This assumes that IFS is set to begin with
> > which may not be the case.
>
> I have consulted the Single Unix Standard and can find only dubious
> j
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 04:36:14PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman writes:
> > I think Emacs as a task makes good sense.
>
> I think getting it out of standard makes good sense, but I'm not convinced
> that it makes sense as a "task".
I think it ma
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:17:21AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> Unless, of course, you can do your filtering on the mail
> Matt> server, as I do.
>
> In my c
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:00:18PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
> It seems like an easy way to prevent the following would be to update the
> Packages.gz file LAST, after syncing up the other files, IE:
>
> rsync --exclude "Packages*" debian/pool
> rsync --delete debian/pool (If old packages are e
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 07:31:48PM -0400, Alan Shutko wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In many Linux distributions, Emacs is a high-level installation task, like
> > "Games" or "Mail". This makes sense to the average user, wh
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:10:47PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I think it makes as much sense as the existing task packages.
>
> Existing brokenness is no excuse for new brokenness though. I have gone
> into detail about how the current task system is
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:12:24PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Is there a way to upgrade all currently installed packages which have
> had an urgency=high version uploaded to the archive since I last
> upgraded? (And any necessary dependencies, of course.) I'm thinking
> of this for the unst
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 09:57:57PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> And it doesn't matter for you either, because I reassigned the bug to
> perl-base. If you continue to argue and say that it is not a bug
> (somewhere; anywhere) that I can't upgrade from stable to unstable I
> will ignore your messages.
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 12:50:51PM -0500, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> Oh, I don't know if it's an ugly hack. Think about it, theres one program
> or system that handles conflicts and dependencies. Why not rely on it?
> Making multiple programs to do the same function (installing and removing
> pack
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:10:32PM -0500, Gordon Sadler wrote:
> On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 02:44:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >
> > I had an idea (and a working script) to extract changelogs from source
> > packages and insert them into a SQL database. My orig
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 11:51:39AM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Steve M. Robbins writes:
> > I don't follow your reasoning. Are you suggesting that the bug
> > submitters will be less annoyed if the bug is closed after 30 days,
> > rather than immediately? Why would that be?
>
> Many bug submitt
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 04:15:58PM -0400, Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> I seem to be in a very troublesome spot... My dpkg segfaults in any needed
> situation:
>
> dpkg -i foo
> Segmentation fault
>
> Dselect: Update
> Okay
> Dselect: Select
> Segmentation fault
>
> dpkg --unpack fo
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 06:27:32PM -0400, Jon Eisenstein wrote:
> > Did you check whether the contents of /var/lib/dpkg are intact
> > (specifically, the status file and info/*.list)?
>
> The status file exists but is empty, and the info/*.list seem to be intact.
status should theoretically be r
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:30:23PM +1000, Sam Couter wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > A cleaner implementation would be to create a simple program or script that
> > would attempt to remove a given package and (recursively) all of its
> >
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 07:56:10PM -0700, Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2001, Matt Zimmerman wrote: [...]
> > I had an idea (and a working script) to extract changelogs from source
> > packages and insert them into a SQL database. My original intention was to
> >
On Tue, May 01, 2001 at 08:28:09PM -0700, Francois Gouget wrote:
>I know about apt-listchanges but, AFAIU, it extracts the changelog from
>the .deb files. So you cannot get this changelog before downloading the
>.deb packages. It's when I'm still in dselect deciding which packages to
>
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:33:27PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Maybe its too difficult to provide consistent package files for the short
> window while the mirror updates are running. No cons.
>
> But is it possible to set some kind
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:01:44AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> >>>>> "Matt" == Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Matt> I discussed the idea a bit with James Troup, and one of his
> Matt> concerns was that the database would be c
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 08:38:23PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> These ideas sound great to me. In case they don't get implemented, or until
> they do, would it be hard to cook up a script that does what I want, even if
> it involves downloading the packages to see the changelogs?
If you don't
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:54:17PM -0400, Dan Christensen wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If you don't mind downloading the packages, you can just use
> > apt-listchanges. It will sort its output by urgency, and you can use that
> > i
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 10:27:56AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> Instead could you skip step 1 and do it:
>
> 1. apt-get install foo
> 1.1 apt queries SQL server "SELECT * FROM packages WHERE package=foo,
> architecture=i386, operatingsystem=linux"
> 1.2 apt gets result, and installs package.
>
> Th
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 08:58:01PM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> >
> > What about stable? Removing the stable Packages file during an update
> > would make it impossible to do a network install.
> >
> Not impossible. But the client would have to wait till the *.deb files have
> been mirrored co
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:49:47PM +0200, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 11:52:46PM +, Will Lowe wrote:
> > > > > I think it's safe to assume that your system MUST have a working MTA
> > > > > of some sort (even if it's local-only, which is
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:00:14PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> maybe it is a stupid question, but can debian packages be installed in other
> places than / ?
>
> I know that when the package is compiled the Makefile has a $DESTDIR
> attribute, but is this preserved in the deb package?
>
>
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:33:45PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> One could use fakeroot to create a sort of virtual machine, in which regular
> users can install packages as they please, but fakeroot doesn't support
> chroot (yet?), and I'm beginning to think a better solution would be an
> op
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 05:47:21PM -0700, Alexander Hvostov wrote:
> On Sat, 5 May 2001 19:01:03 -0400 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You should look into the S/390 port.
>
> The S/390 port is hardware specific. For obvious reasons (how many Debian
> machin
On Sun, May 06, 2001 at 07:54:17AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Does anybody out there know what is the problem here? Maybe its
> the failure of Apache. What are your suggestions for running a
> cache for apt-get?
As far as I am aware, Apache's caching functionality is rather primitive. Try
Squ
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 02:15:58PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 10:00:14PM +0200, Egon Willighagen wrote:
> workaround: just extract the data.tar.gz where you want it.
>
> dpkg-home () {
> [ "$1" ] || { echo "usage: $0 [dir_to_install]"
>
aemon exists for that
architecture. If you know of a build daemon for an architecture
other than arm, m68k, powerpc, or sparc (even if it doesn't have a
web interface), please let me know so that I can list it.
Matt
1. http://www.debian.org/devel/buildds
On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 08:20:27PM -0400, Brandon L. Griffith wrote:
> * Jason Thomas ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > take a look at apt-listchanges
>
> aha I knew it, yet another apt-* or dpkg-* utility I haven't heard of. I
> need to keep more up to date on these things, or these utilities need
an arm, m68k, powerpc, or sparc (even if
> >> it doesn't have a
>
> Randolph> i386, mips, mipsel, ia64, hppa, alpha, s390 all have
> Randolph> autobuilders.
>
>
> IT would be nice if we could also list which of those have non-us
> autobuilders.
I'd be happy to, if someone would let me know which those are.
Matt
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 02:43:36AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> [snip binary package dependencies]
>
> The number of the *binary* packages that Build-Depends on a package:
> ./analyse-sources.perl | sort -n -r
> 5208 libncurses-dev
> 5203 libgc5-dev
> 5203 doxygen
I suspect a bug here. I can onl
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 09:06:04AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> libc6-dev (Source: glibc) has Build-Depends: gcc-3.0-sparc64 [sparc] .
> gcc-3.0-sparc64 (Source: gcc-3.0) has Build-Depends-Indep: doxygen .
You are correct. I had overlooked Build-Depends-Indep in my manual scan.
--
- mdz
On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 10:51:04PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> Question regarding this new bug on procmail-lib that I adopted recently:
>
> [snip copy of my bug report]
>
> I would happily move it to /usr/share, however I am worried about users
> who are already using the current version. Use
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:53:26PM +0100, Nick Phillips wrote:
> I wonder whether anyone can point me at a likely cause for a slightly
> worrying list of messages I'm getting from dpkg-source when using
> dpkg-buildpackage to build a multi-binary package... during the build
> I get:
If you put th
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:12:35PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 13, 2001 at 12:53:49AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > Would turning /usr/lib/procmail-lib into a symlink to the appropriate
> > > location be acceptable?
> >
> > This, in particula
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:50:42PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 04:18:22PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > ...and the new prerm remove it, and future versions of these scripts
> > until the end of ti^W^W^Wrelease after next...
>
> Actually, if you&#x
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:41:21AM +0200, Gerhard Tonn wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2001 07:29, you wrote:
> > In my case it's esound-common, which in turn makes the entire gnome tree
> > not installable.
>
> Most of the esound packages have a 'esound-common (>= ${Source-Version})'
> depende
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 06:34:38PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:24:32PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > We can't really expect the admins to parse through hundreds of
> > changelogs; README.Debian would be a good place, though.
>
> OTOH, apt-listchanges displays the chan
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:18:39PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 07:46:52PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Currently, most users probably don't read README.Debian unless they have
> > a good reason, so while it's the correct place to put things l
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 09:44:23PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 10:30:21PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > It's not that hard to do this for a single package, but it is a completely
> > different matter to do it by hand for every newly-installed p
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
> I just came across this, perhaps someone is interested in packaging it.
[...]
> THE OCELOT SQL DBMS, a standard-SQL Windows package, is now
There's little point in trying to package it until it's ported to Unix-land.
--
- mdz
On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 12:52:37PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> madison seems to be what the debian.org webpage sports as the package
> search over distributions. is it packaged? do you need someone to package
> it?
madison requires connectivity to a Debian database which is not publicly
acces
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 04:44:46PM +0200, Admar Schoonen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2001 at 05:15:31PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > madison requires connectivity to a Debian database which is not publicly
> > accessible, so it is only useful on a couple of internal Debian
>
On Sun, Sep 23, 2001 at 12:14:29AM +0200, Admar Schoonen wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 01:19:36PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> > There's no need for a database unless you want to maintain multiple
> > distributions out of cross-sections of the pool, as Debian doe
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 01:13:26AM -0500, Scott Dier wrote:
> I got sick of how nasty IMP was getting and moved to squirrelmail
> recently. I dont think theres a package out there yet, nor do I know of a
> tool to move IMP database-driven address books to squirrelmail's format
> (yet).
http://bu
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 01:40:37PM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Dec 2001 13:42:52 -0800,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > What I really want to know, is what script is run on the official
> > mirrors that parses the pool directories and generates
> > the Packages and Release files all on
On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:13:30AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk
> |
> | Really? I'm often happy and I see other maintainers that are happy when
> | they get "new upstream version" wishlist bug reports - it does sometimes
> | happen that for any reason you did oversee a new versi
On Fri, Dec 21, 2001 at 03:37:15PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > btw, as someone has mentioned privately, 'howto' is no more a word than
> > 'zonefile' is. perhaps there should be auto spelling-flame bug reports
> > on every package that use
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 08:15:40PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> any search on google or other search engines will reveal many thousands
> of uses of the word 'zonefile'. like i said, it's in common usage in
> the field and has been for years. but that couldn't possibly be
> evidence, could it?
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 06:34:29PM +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Adam Olsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2001.12.23.1822 +0100]:
> > > fishbowl:..b/pantsfullofunix.net> print -l *
> > > adequacy.org_hacker.html
> > > index.html
> > > mirror/
> > > ms_white/
> > > www.unix-vs-nt.org/
> > > fi
On Sat, Dec 22, 2001 at 02:07:31PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
>What exactly is the situation with regard to openoffice going into
>debian sid? I ask because OpenOffice 641C seems quite robust now (I've
>been doing some statistical data analysis in it this weekend and it
>works as w
On Tue, Dec 25, 2001 at 02:11:06AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman
>
> | On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 11:13:30AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > In addition, it shows that somebody besides yourself care about the
> | > software you are packaging. Which
On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 10:28:47AM -0600, Kevin Corry wrote:
> > > The EVMS Project uses a layered, plug-in model to provide unparalleled
> > > flexibility and extensibility in managing storage. This allows for
> > > easy expansion or customization of various levels of volume
> > > management.
> >
801 - 900 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
