bzip2 and multiarch transition

m now.) Regards, Santiago [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/03/msg00762.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140728053514.GA12338@nomada

Re: bzip2 and multiarch transition

sues trying to downgrade. Thanks for your comments, Santiago -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140731145844.GA7155@nomada

Re: software updates file in /usr -- policy bug?

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote: > Hi all, > > apt-spy and pciutils (and possibly others) contain methods to update > a database integral to their operation. > > - `apt-spy update` downloads the list of available Debian mirrors > to /usr/share/apt-spy (see #277816). > > - `up

Re: Is membership in staff supposed to imply root access?

On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Rob Browning wrote: > It looks like our installs set up /usr/local/bin to be group staff and > writable by staff, and place /usr/local/(s)bin before /usr/(s)bin in > root's PATH. > > I was a little surprised because I thought we used to exclude the > /usr/local directories fro

Moving PATH from /root/.profile to /etc/profile

Hi. By popular demand, I plan to move the PATH definition for root from the default /root/.profile to the default /etc/profile. If anybody knows a good reason why this should not be done before the release of sarge, please say so. After an amount of time which is reasonale for a "frozen" package l

Re: sarge security (was: Re: Release update: please upload to unstable; toolchain; buildds; ...)

On Sat, 13 Nov 2004, Martin Schulze wrote: > Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > On Tuesday 09 November 2004 23.44, Colin Watson wrote: > > > > > N+0 days > > > Official security support for sarge begins > > > > Will the start of official security support for sarge be announced w

Bug#284114: ITP: mpegdemux -- a MPEG1/2 system stream demultiplexer

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Package name: mpegdemux Version : 0.1.2 Upstream Author : Hampa Hug URL : http://www.hampa.ch/mpegdemux/ License : GPL version 2 Description: a MPEG1/2 system stream demultiplexer Mpegdemux is an MPEG1/MPEG2 system stream demultipl

Re: add Date: field to Packages files

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Say, perhaps a "Date:" field could be added to Packages files. > I mean even dog food has the date stamped on it these days. > Even my crumby message has a Date: field. > Sure, as your eyes scan the MD5sum: field, the package's DNA is > registered in your

Re: amd64: ftp-masters questions

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004, Martin Michlmayr - Debian Project Leader wrote: > My recollection is that all technical concerns were addressed and that > the port would go in after the mirror issues will be sorted out (which > will happen some point after sarge). Why after sarge? Nobody knows when sarge wi

Re: strange (or unexplainable) permissions on /var/log/*

On Sun, 12 Dec 2004, martin f krafft wrote: > I am trying to make sense of /var/log/*. I noticed the following > peculiarities: > > - user.log is 0640. However, aren't "user" messages possibly > relevant to users? If so, I suggest making the file 0644. 640 is not necessarily broken. There

/etc/profile not a conffile anymore

Hello. I plan to make /etc/profile a "configuration file which is not a conffile but it's created by postinst instead", so that dpkg never asks about it, not even once every two years. The prototype is at http://people.debian.org/~sanvila/base-files I've checked that upgrades work (they already

Re: /var/log on Debian systems

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004, martin f krafft wrote: > - first suggest to make /var/log group adm and setgid, so that any > new files automatically belong to group adm. No, not again. Please google a little bit more before proposing things. For example, read the complete logs for Bug #35504.

Re: murphy is listed on spamcop

On 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > My point was that you cannot justify the bad things that happen as a > result of your actions by saying that your goals cannot be reached > without such bad things happening. However, the same could be said about the result of our *inactions*. When bad

Re: murphy is listed on spamcop

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For example, implementing greylisting in master would be bad for you, > > because you demand that mail is transmitted without any delay at all. > > When have I ever m

Re: Bug#292759: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005, Martin Schulze wrote: > Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > You wouldn't need to change "every" script - you just need to move > > > gettext.sh to /usr/share/gettext/scripts and create /usr/bin/gettext.sh > > > with the content Sean suggested. > > > > Which buys us what? > > > >

Re: Package xxx has broken dep on yyy: normal?

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005, Dan Jacobson wrote: > Well OK, but please be aware of the cases where a kid leaves his > village for a trip to the big city and his single chance to do an > apt-get dist-upgrade. He can't just try again tomorrow if things > don't work out. Unstable is definitely not for peop

procmail and Large File Support

Hello. I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders larger than 2GB. Questions: * Am I right to think that adding -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to CFLAGS should be enough to fix this, as explained by this URL?: http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html The version in experimental h

Re: procmail and Large File Support

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > > The version in experimental has -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and it works > > on files larger than 2GB, but I have only tested it on the i386 > > architecture. > > Please use the value of $(getconf LFS_CFLAGS) instead; it appears (based on > past exim4 bu

Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005, Steve Langasek wrote: > To be eligible for inclusion in the archive at all, even in the > (unstable-only) SCC archive, ftpmasters have specified the following > architecture requirements: > > [...] > > - the architecture must have successfully compiled 50% of the archive's >

ITK: debmake

Greetings. There are less than 80 packages in unstable still using it, and there is an excellent package called debhelper which can do everything that debmake does and probably much better, so it does not make much sense to keep debmake alive forever. Therefore, I hereby announce my Intention To

Re: ITK: debmake

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Friday 30 December 2005 03.18, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Santiago: > > > As a realistic goal, I estimate that etch will be the last release > > > containing debmake, but of course, I would be deligthed to see it >

Re: ITK: debmake

Ok, to make things gradual, this is what I plan to do: * Announce this in -devel-announce to celebrate the new year. * Wait a few weeks. * Submit wishlist bugs against all packages affected (which I hope they will not be as much as 78 by then). * After the release of etch, debmake will be remov

Re: Nags...

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Christopher C Chimelis wrote: > FYI, I'm receiving all of the bug system nags for Christian Linhart for > his abandoned packages (xarchie and bibindex). I guess his account was > eliminated from master and my master account username is the

Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 17 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote: > Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > This is part of an email exchange Sven and I had. Simply put, I put > > in a new alpha binary of dpkg-1.4.0.19 that represented nothing but > > a recompile to pick up ne

Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 17 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote: > you don't have to [do] a source release to do a non-maintainer release, > just add a new entry to the changelog before you recompile. Well, if this is so, this would be the best solution. Just call it "dpkg-1.4.0.19.0" and

Re: libc6 pine ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Gergely Madarasz wrote: > I was just informed (thanks, Che ;)) that there is a newer pine > source-only package in non-free... does it compile and work with libc6 ? It compiles, but it does not "work" (it does, but not in a multi-user environment, so installing

Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > It was my understanding that the only time it is necessary to upload a new > source package was when the upstream source changed. Here, "source" means "Debian source", i.e. orig source + diff. In fact, you upload a new

Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Christian Schwarz wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Santiago Vila wrote: > > [snip] > > BTW: After "the version number has to be incremented too (this is, the > > source package has to be changed and uploaded again) to

Re: What warrants a non-maintainer release number?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Santiago Vila wrote: > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > > > It was my understanding that the only time it is necessary to upload a new > > >

Re: Ian Jackson back

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > I'm now properly back. I'll try to catch up on the mailing lists in > the next few days. Great! Will you be so kind to: a) Put bug web pages in normal order. and b) divert all those 300K reports from debian-bugs-dist

Re: Self Referencing depends

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 7 Jan 1998 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > For instance, take "unzip". The "unzip" and "unzip-crypt" (on non-US) > packages both provide the virtual package "unzip", so that other packages > can have a "Depends: unzip" (the virtual one), without having to kno

Re: Debian 2.0 release requirements

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > it is nice property of "less" (as opposed to "more") that it filters > out all non-ascii charachters (changes them to some ^... printable > sequencies). As a result, it is not possible to trash the console by > doing "

Re: procps

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 8 Jan 1998, Ulf Jaenicke-Roessler wrote: > where should 'ps' reside, according to the standard? > In the latest version it moved from /bin/ps to /usr/bin/ps. According to the maintainer, it will be moved back to /bin. This is bug #16705. Thanks.

Re: Uncompress /usr/doc/copyright/GPL.gz please

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 8 Jan 1998, John Goerzen wrote: > Can /usr/doc/copyright/GPL.gz be uncompressed in the future? It will be uncompressed in the future. See Bug #15025. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNLUoSCqK7IlOjMLFAQErLAQAmKQSIHqXKSuj

Re: Debian 2.0 release requirements

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 10 Jan 1998, Alex Yukhimets wrote: > Yes, but if I sent you a message containing some russian leters you > wouldn't see them the way I see anyway. The same thing for every other > language. 8-bit clean e-mail message is not the one to send to > internati

/usr/bin disappeared. Do we really follow FSSTND?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- A friend of mine has a machine on the net whose /usr/bin directory has disappeared. The machine has a Debian mirror, so any package is available to be installed again, however: `dpkg' was in /usr/bin, so currently there is no package manager. `ftp' was also in

Re: base-files 1.6 (source all) uploaded to master

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Wed, 8 Apr 1998, Raul Miller wrote: > Riku Voipio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The point is new users. > > Then we should be talking about /etc/skel/, rather than /etc/profile Well, if we talk about /etc/skel, then we could ask: Is there any other shell

Re: Is the `scsh' licence DFSG compliant? Please advise.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 9 Apr 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > Attached is the COPYING file from `scsh-0.5.1'. Use of this program for commercial purposes is also permitted, but only if, in addition to the acknowledgement required for non-commercial users, written notification o

Re: Why isn't "/var/run" drwxrwxrwt ?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 8 Apr 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote: > Why isn't "/var/run" set like "/tmp"? Shouldn't user-run programs be > able to write a pid file there? I don't think so. According to the FSSTND: 5.10 /var/run : Run-time variable files This directory contains syst

Need help to fix some debmake bugs.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- #12443: debmake: uupdate should support pristine sources I have never used uupdate, so if anyone volunteers, I will accept patches. Since most tarballs uncompress now into a single directory, it would ok if uupdate is changed so that it support *only* pristine

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sat, 11 Apr 1998, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Why don't we include selected directories from there on the official > CD (I think of gettext (ouch, don't beat me), 2.1.x software, ...)? gettext is in experimental so that it will *not* be included in CDs... If

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi. Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian. It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, we should not put it on CDs yet. If a packag

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Brian White: > Project/experimental is not searched by dselect & friends apt does search in experimental, as far as I know. > > If a package being in "experimental" does not implicitly mean "not to be > > distributed in CDs", then we would need definitely anoth

Making the libc5-libc6 upgrade to be safe (was: netstd...)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- [ This was: Bug#13849: netstd should predepend on libreadlineg2 ] [ I would like to appeal to the technical comittee here. Unfortunately the technical comittee does not exist yet and all we have so far is debian-devel. Therefore we will have to discuss it here a

Re: Debian Bug#20445 disagree

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 16 Apr 1998, Joel Klecker wrote: > I find it odd that the GNU ftp site and mirrors thereof are not considered > "wide distribution" by gettext's author. > > That is a very very old release (from december

Re: Making the libc5-libc6 upgrade to be safe (was: netstd...)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 17 Apr 1998, Peter Tobias wrote: > On Apr 16, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Summary: In a bo system, I managed to upgrade netstd without installing > > libreadlineg2 first and the simple ftp client stopped working. This is a > > really b

Maildir patches for procmail.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hello. A user has asked me to add maildir support for procmail. The patch: http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~bguenter/distrib/procmail-maildir/procmail-maildir.patch is extremely clean and simple, and since already existing .procmailrc files do not use maildir folders (wh

Re: Processed:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 24 Apr 1998, Ian Jackson wrote: > Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > [Bugs #10087 #11903 #13017 #15267 #17647 #18416 #9294 reassigned to general]. Clarification: All these bugs are already closed, just that I don't want to see them in my we

base-files etc.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Ok, trying to be "conservative", I have changed the default prompt for root from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ ' to '\h:\w\$ ' in base-files_1.9. I would really like to see something like '\h:\w\$ ' (or '\w\$ ' at least) in /etc/skel/.bashrc. Would it be against polic

Re: What to do with /bin/perl symlink?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Enrique Zanardi wrote: > Currently the base system comes with that symlink, but I plan to remove > it for the next boot-floppies release. Objections? None. Just a question: Are there more files (still) in the base system but not in any pack

Re: base-files etc.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Avery Pennarun wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 1998 at 02:46:58PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Ok, trying to be "conservative", I have changed the default prompt for > > root from '[EMAIL PROTECTED]:\w\$ &#x

Re: base-files 1.9 (source all) uploaded to master

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Sun, 26 Apr 1998, Richard Braakman wrote: > > Changes: > > base-files (1.9) frozen unstable; urgency=low > > >* nsswitch.conf: Use "compat" instead of "db files" for passwd, group > > and shadow (Bug #10896). > > I think this is a bad time to make

Re: base-files etc.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 27 Apr 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote: > Santiago Vila wrote on 26.04.98: > > > I would really like to see something like '\h:\w\$ ' (or '\w\$ ' at > > least) in /etc/skel/.bashrc. Would it be against policy? > > Pol

Re: Constitution - formal proposal (v0.7)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- 5. No detailed design work. Then Technical Committee does not engage in design of new Should be "The", I think. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNUcduSqK7IlOjMLFAQGkhAP+LvASURChex4byQh9

Re: weird effect

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > Tonight I upgraded to current hamm; I was asked if I wanted to replace my > issue and issue.net files; I replied N to both. issue was preserved, > but issue.net is gone! > > The preinst for base-files removes /etc/is

intent to take mawk and gawk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- If nobody objects, I intent to take mawk and gawk. [ There have been no maintainer uploads since March 1997, is one year enough? ]. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNUdt9yqK7IlOjMLFAQH0XgP/VDlUE4ye939QxpFJ401coph8+iw4fc5

Re: intent to take mawk and gawk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 29 Apr 1998, James Troup wrote: > Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If nobody objects, I intent to take mawk and gawk. > > I object. > I've talked with Christopher and I'm taking the packages on

Re: Intent to package: uedit

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I thought you had "zero intention to maintain a non-free package". Have you changed your mind? > To get maximum speed uedit will disable the > wasteful multi-tasking behaviour of Linux and make it do the Right > thing, DOS-style single-tasking. Obviously neithe

Re: intent to take mawk and gawk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 29 Apr 1998, James Troup wrote: > Uh, first and foremost, mawk and gawk are *not* orphaned. What do you mean by orphaned, then? Perhaps we should agree on a common definition of "orphaned". > And what's being done in secret? I'm announced my intent in my p

Re: intent to take mawk and gawk

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi. Just to make things clearer: If Chris asked you to maintain mawk and gawk for him, I have no objections. I was just a little bit annoyed because I already asked Chris the maintenance of gawk several months ago (at that time I agreed with him to do a non-mai

Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- I have just read Bug #14355, in which Ian Jackson said about qmail-src: This package has no reason to exist and should be withdrawn. We distribute source as .dsc/.diff.gz/.orig.tar.gz. Well, this package exists for two reasons: 1) Because license does not

Re: Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > I agree with Ian. The .deb file format is expressly for the distribution > of configured executables (binaries for short). Using this format for > source distribution is simply asking for trouble. I don't see any troub

Re: Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Stephen Carpenter wrote: > hmm would it satisfy things to make a binary dist of the original files and of > the debainized files...and litterally have it unpack the "real" pine and then > run > patch on it with a diff made agains t the debi

Re: Debian Source distributions (was Re: Intent to package pine-src)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Jules Bean wrote: > [ ... ] > Any thoughts? Very nice... but *not for hamm*, as I said in my first mail. I was just talking about *hamm*, the distribution that will not change anymore once it will be released soon. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE

Re: binary-CD exceeds 650 MB -- any solution?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 20 Apr 1998, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > What are the plans for the official CD? The official CD will not have non-free on it. ¿Should we care about non-official CDs? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: 2.6.3ia Charset: latin1 iQCVAgUBNTu0yiqK7IlO

Re: Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Rev. Joseph Carter wrote: > The postinst for the .deb will compile the source, install the .deb, and > clean up after itself if you so desire for a -src package... Well, I don't plan to do that. I think it would be too much for a -src packa

Re: Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, Dale Scheetz wrote: > As to source dependency problems, it is my understanding that all the > packages in the main distribution can be built using only packages from > main. Given that that doesn't tell you which packages those are, and that

Re: Intent to package pine-src

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 1 May 1998, James Troup wrote: > Please think very hard about the benefits of our current system before > advocating a replacement for it. The pine-src package will not replace the already existing pine source in the "source" directory. Moreover, there will

source packages and censorship

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- We must ask ourselves: Why do we make .deb packages? Simple answer: Because our users find them useful. Remember the discussion about the purity package? Well, it was agreed (I think) that as long as the package had a license allowing to distribute it, we can ma

Re: source packages and censorship

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Fri, 1 May 1998, Daniel Martin at cush wrote: > Let me lay out my opinion of the differences of the effects of the two > methods: Let me tell you that there is a workaround for all your objections :-) > Method pine-src: > --- > - the user who h

Re: Copyright of fontinst.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 4 May 1998, Federico Di Gregorio wrote: > Hi, > some time ago I expressed the intent to package fontinst > (a TeX/LaTeX package). I asked the author about the licence > and here's what I got. It is not DFSG but we *do* have latex > in tetex. So is

Re: /tmp permissions !

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Thu, 7 May 1998, Nuno Emanuel F. Carvalho wrote: >$ chmod 777 tmp Please do chmod 1777 /tmp instead. If you are worried about security, the sticky bit is supposed to be explained in every good general FAQ about Unix. Thanks. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE

Bug#22206: Some package uses psmisc without a dependency

Package: general Version: 1998-05-07 Today I have just tried the new APT on a libc5 machine to upgrade to hamm. [ Looks promising! ]. Well, from the hundreds of messages I was able to see a "killall: command not found" or something alike. I am quite surprised to see that psmisc is just optional (

Bug#22206: Some package uses psmisc without a dependency

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On 7 May 1998, James Troup wrote: > Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Anyway, since psmisc is not essential (and this is what really > > matters), it would be interesting to know which package uses killall > >

Re: Intent to package doc-debian-es

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- The doc-debian-es package is already in alpha stage, and contains the Debian FAQ. Please see: http://master.debian.org/~sanvila If you are interested in translation issues, please subscribe to the debian-l10n-spanish mailing list. BTW: I need people to read th

Build-Depends: libmysqlclient-dev and buildds

The recent announce from Steve has reminded me of something I wanted to ask about the package name change from libmysqlclient-dev to libmysqlclient12-dev made in November: Do packages still having "Build-Depends: libmysqlclient-dev" build from source? Trying "apt-get build-dep" on them results on

Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote: > [...] > My question: does anybody have further references for the question > whether it is ok or maybe even preferable to install non-programs in > /usr/bin? You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug. So I'll repeat: Please read the logs

Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote: > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 05:40:05PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote: > > You forgot to quote last thing I said when closing the bug. > > > > So I'll repeat: Please read the logs for non-bug Bug#292759, where the > > author ex

Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005, sean finney wrote: > why not do something like this in > any script that uses gettext: > > #!/bin/sh > > PATH=${PATH}:/usr/share/gettext/scripts > . gettext.sh Because we already have /usr/bin for that and there is no need to change every script that uses gettext. -- To

Re: Bug#292759: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Matthew Palmer wrote: > "Because I don't wanna play by the rules!" is not a rationale. You are mistaken. I want to play by the rules, but the rules say executables should go to /usr/bin, *not* that everything in /usr/bin should be executable. > So you have to specify a path

Re: shell script sniplets in /usr/bin?

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Jochen Voss wrote: > Hello John, > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 11:46:12AM -0600, John Hasler wrote: > > Jochen Voss writes: > > > Any references for this? I was a little bit disappointed that the FHS > > > was so unclear about /usr/bin and I do not know where else to look. > >

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > A new mirror_2.9-1 is now on master. The copyright has changed (see below), > and should be fine with us. Or is the 'changes must be distributed as > patches' policy too restrictive for us? It is allowed, as an "ex

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: >Permission to modify the software is granted, but not the right to >distribute the modified code. Modifications are to be distributed as >patches to released version. Mmm, wait a moment... Does this mea

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > Santiago> Does this mean the modified-for-Debian "mirror" may not be > Santiago> distributed inside the .deb binary package? > > Well, in mirror_2.9-1, all files by Lee are unmodifi

Re: mirror-2.9 released, and hopefully DFSG compliant

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Clarification, I said: > [ Otherwise, I could distribute my "unmodified" pine396-src package in > main, which would be clearly against DFSG ]. Really, this was not a good example, because pine copyright would still say "No commercial use of these trademarks".

Re: Bug#300996: ITP: clamassassin -- simple wrapper for clamav

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Nick Price wrote: > Package: wnpp > Severity: wishlist > Owner: Nick Price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > * Package name: clamassassin > Version : 1.2.2 > Upstream Author : James Lick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > * URL : http://drivel.com/clamassassin/ > *

Re: debian.org email forwarding

On Sat, 7 May 2005, martin f krafft wrote: > I am trying to switch to procmail on master, which involves putting > a proper ~/.procmailrc in place and nothing else. > > However, a major problem arises due to spam. My last rule forwards > remaining mails to my normal email address, using the stand

Re: debian.org email forwarding

On Sat, 7 May 2005, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.07.1403 +0200]: > > Why are you so much worried about the envelope sender, when it is > > usually forged? You are not trying to bounce messages that you > > didn&#x

Re: debian.org email forwarding

On Sat, 7 May 2005, martin f krafft wrote: > also sprach Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.05.07.1506 +0200]: > > You should really accept messages from master before trying to > > reject spam, i.e. use some kind of whitelist for master. If that's > > not

Re: Dear Adrian Bunk, Please hold off a week or two

On Tue, 31 May 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 03:45:07PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > Or do you _really_ want to release sarge with many dozens of already > > > known and fixed bugs? > > > > I'd worry about it more if we hadn't suffered from the same o

automated updates of debian/changelog considered harmful

Ok, this is already the second time I have to report a bug like this, so I will warn everybody before I find more of them. There seems to be a bunch of packages who try to update the changelog in this way: dch -a -p "GNU config automated update: config.sub\ ($$OLDDATESUB t

Re: C++ ABI change -- freezing unstable for new C++ library packages

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Adam Majer wrote: > Also, the testing seems to be now unfrozen except for base. Does the > base freeze have anything to do with the new C++ ABI? No, it's more a leftover of the freeze process. I asked Steve today about this. He says base packages will be unfrozen again in a fe

Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

Now that we have released sarge, I would like to ask debian-admin and the Project Leader to consider seriously doing something to reduce the level of spam we have to receive, store, and filter in our @debian.org addresses. For example, we could use greylisting. Or we could reject messages that are

Re: setting umask globally

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, martin f krafft wrote: > If one is faced with the task to set the umask globally for all > users and shells, this turns out to be a job of redundancy: every > shell uses its own file in /etc, and you end up making changes to > 5 files or more (depending on the number of instal

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Jesus Climent wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 08:46:33PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote: > > > I recomed using spamhaus SBL-XBL, or at least CBL (which is included in > > SBL-XBL). > > I dont: http://www.paulgraham.com/spamhausblacklist.html Selected paragraph from the article:

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 05:53:25PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote: > > In fact, most of the effectiveness of SBL-XBL really comes from the CBL, > > as shown by the widely known statistics: > > > > http://www.sdsc.edu/~jeff/sp

Re: Greylisting for @debian.org email, please

On Mon, 20 Jun 2005, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 18-Jun-05, 17:24 (CDT), Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > An email address with such blocking on it is therefore not suitable > > for the Maintainer: field of a Debian package. > > Any spam filtering system is going to have *som

Re: Getting rid of circular dependencies

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote: > Depends does not just mean "executables will crash or fail to load". > It actually means "it is pointless to install this package without this > other package". I think we should not use such meaning for the Depends field. Otherwise we could end up h

Re: OT: No unsubscribe signature?

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Pascal Hakim wrote: > In my experience as a listmaster, the people who like to complain about > the fact that we add a signature on the bottom of every email, will > usually find a number of other things they dislike. [...] That's funny. I don't like the high number of spam m

Re: mail all bug reporters

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005, Nico Golde wrote: > I think you misunderstood me. Example: > An adopted package xxx has a lot of old bugs which are > related to very old versions. Now the maintainer changes. > Now he wants to send mails to all bug openors if the bug is > still actual and can be reproduced.

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >