On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default
kernel
Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles
the kernel,
Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
problems.
This think about what they are doing thing is precisely one of the
reasons the extra priority does exist.
According to
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:05:26PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
in any case, i don't see it as a problem. IMO, the fact that they have
different package names is USEFUL information. it tells me that there's
something possibly weird or dangerous going on and i should be extra
careful before i
Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
people to install me just as an elevator buttun tells people push me.
Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and
Brian White wrote:
Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package.
Aha! Well I agree with it WRT images.
--
see shy jo
First I want to thank everyone for their replies.
Second I want to appologize for my incorrect phrasing of the subject line.
Several people have pointed out that there are very nice packages that
deal with dependencies, while others pointed out that the other ored
elements satisfied the
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all
references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages.
As the Packages file is the weak link in the distribution method, I
decided to interrogate the actual packages
Hey all. I'm kind of new around here (in the devel list), but I have
been using Debian for a while, and I want to contribute. I'm not much
of a C coder or anything, but I can whack Perl with the rest of them.
Anyway, getting to the point, I took a little and coded a Funge
interpreter in
Hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Tom Lees, Stardate 210199.2014:
The password is anonymous. Generate it like this:-
echo 'main(){printf(%s\n,crypt(password,tL));}'t.c; \
gcc -o t t.c -lcrypt; ./t; rm t t.c
I'd say perl -e 'print crypt(passwd,tL).\n' is much shorter :)
Greetings
--
Alexander N.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:39:18AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
=20
The only thing my proposal changed was the UID and the GID of the web
server, so that
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:38:54AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 20:26:12 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
i mostly agree but wouldn't put it anywhere near that strongly.
I would. Ben's phrasing strongly reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein;
especially of the concept of
Allan M. Wind [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs to
Hi,
I am having some real problems booting the current boot disks for potato
on my Dell PowerEdge 6300 server system. The problem appears to occur
when the rescue disk kernels probes for hardware. Everytime it begins to
probe for SCSI hardware the machine just dies. I lose video signal and I
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:48:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
Pournelle's even worse. in partnership with Niven he writes some great
stories. take the politics with a large grain of salt, though. Must
admit I like the Think of it as evolution in action phrase, though i
use it in contexts
Ben Collins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
very stable, but it will have
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:36:23AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
I was thinking of the following packages:
isdnutils contains the basic isdnctrl, ipppd stuff needed for networking
isdnmonitoring isdnlog, imon, xisdnload, ... that sort of thing
isdndocs the faqs and other docs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Try looking at http://www.debian.org/logo (or logos)
On 22-Jan-99 Havoc Pennington wrote:
Hi,
Gnome ships with icons for different kinds of files, and right now .deb
packages have the Debian logo as icon. I've been asked to make sure this
is OK from a
Ossama Othman wrote:
The machines both have two Adaptec 7890 and one Adaptec 7860 SCSI chipsets
installed. Each machine also has a gigabyte of memory and four Intel
Pentium II Xeons installed. In order to get RedHat to work we had to fool
the kernel into thinking that it had less than a gig of
Hi Robert,
# dd if=resc1440.bin of=/dev/fd0
# mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt
# cd /mnt
# rm linux
# cp /place/i/have/my/working/kernel linux
# ./rdev.sh
# cd /
# umount /mnt
Yes, the rdev.sh script does require that you mount the disk on /mnt.
Make sure your rescue disk contains ext2,
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people
do.
---end quoted text---
That's what dselect is for...you only download that which you
are going to install. By adding the 2.2.0 kernel and or source
as an extra
Hi again,
2.0.x maxes out at 2^30-2^26 = 1006632960 bytes, or 960MB, of RAM.
Thus, you'll wanna use mem=960M.
You can also adjust some headers (I forget which) to expand the kernel
memory / virtual memory split (it is adjustable, and it defaults to 1GB/3GB).
Can the 2.1/2.2 kernels
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
Try looking at http://www.debian.org/logo (or logos)
Thanks!
It looks like a) the license is expired and b) it doesn't apply to Gnome
anyway because Gnome is not clearly half Debian related. Though arguably
we're talking about .deb packages rather
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:48:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
(BTW: TANSTAAFL was Larry Niven, not Heinlein IIRC)
Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, I thought. Actually I never
read it but it was a favourite of some people in the local
FidoNet region a few years back (as Craig might
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:22:58PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so we
could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead and
print it
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:30:45PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so
we
could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
free license and available to anyone with a web browser and the like? =
I'm
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
free license and available to anyone
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
aolMe too/aol We could call it gnuice :-)
I would have to bop you then... = But it would be under a free
software type license, probably GPL or LGPL rewritten
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
aolMe too/aol We could call it gnuice :-)
I would have to bop you then... = But it would be under a free
Hi there,
I am trying to draw attention to what I think is an important piece of
software - Mirrordir. It supports strong encryption but is exportable from
the US because it does not have encryption compiled in by default. Instead
it downloads the scripts it needs from South Africa when it runs
BSMTP mailer for Sendmail completely written in C
This package supplies a new mailer to sendmail, which allows to use
batched SMTP a protocol. BSMTP is used in UUCP environments and
allows to transport many mails as a (compressed) batch instead of
transporting every single mail. So bsmtp is
[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like
the best message for me to respond to.]
Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The question is: What needs to be policy?
Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop
programs that tie the system
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
Still, it is advisable to install the renamed versions of these packages
as soon as is convenient, in the event that their contents do change in
the future.
This would just postpone the problem until there is a real
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
actually put off solving this problem until Debian 2.2, and even longer if
the X fonts don't change.
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:03:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
Avery Pennarun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
actually put off solving this problem
It supports strong encryption but is exportable from
the US because it does not have encryption compiled in by default. Instead
it downloads the scripts it needs from South Africa when it runs for the
first time.
This is *extremely* risky behavior.
FTP and HTTP sites *are* compromised.
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
exportable. And which requires a chain of trust to evaluate
whether to trust the key used to sign the checksum.
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
The first thing a future Debian entrepreneur interested in financial
success would have to address would be to fix all those things which
we Debian propeller heads have preferred to mostly neglect up until
now: ease of install and
On 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
and annoyances they'd have with Debian. They won't care about
Debian's rather unaccessable technical superiority if the installation
hinders them from getting the beast at least easily up and running and
will recommend SuSE to the rest of the world. That's
This means that we're willing to hold off on upgrades to all font packages
until the relevant apt support for package renaming is ready.
I just hope the rest of the world agrees that this is wise.
it's not. i'm new here, so i'm not sure if this is an old topoic or not, but
debian
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Shorter wrote:
Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the
interests of the mass of unskilled consumers? There are lots of dists
that are trying to do that. I'm sure they will do a good job of
introducing newbies to Linux. But I never thought
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
Please don't let's start *this* kind of discussion yet again. It's
*not* about appeasing to the masses of unskilled consumers. It's
about increasing ease of installation, use and maintenance. Skilled
people definitely benefit from such time saving
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:14:35PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
Can some focus be brought to getting there with similar ease? I've
been with Debian for over 2 years now and would be sad to have to
abandon it in the long run because of 'we don't do
Jonathan P Tomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested invocations are read-only). I suppose the trivial
implementation would
thomas lakofski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
In the context of initial installation, I think it's laziness -- a
refusal to examine problems.
That said, the
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 06:34:27PM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
(config.guess rant: *why* the exact processor ID? About half of configure
scripts fall over in ECE Linux builds because they don't expect i686.
This should be x86. And if it has to be exact, where are AMD and
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
(
until dpkg --remove xfntwhatever; do
sleep 120
done /var/tmp/removexfntwhatever.log 21
)
OK.
We have three solutions suggested now:
a) dummy packages (and live with them)
b) dummy packages, which self-remove
c) packages
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
thomas lakofski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
In the context of initial installation, I think it's laziness --
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
exportable. And which requires a chain of trust to evaluate
whether to trust the key used to sign the checksum.
Bear Giles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But you're biting your own tail here. Where do you get that good
checksum?
Any place which is acceptable to the package maintainer -- perhaps out
of a pgp signed archive.
If the package maintainer can't produce a trustable package, it
doesn't matter how
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all
references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages.
As the Packages file is the weak link in the distribution
Previously Anthony Fok wrote:
Unfortunately, the suggestion chown root.floppy and chmod [12]754
won't work either because fdmount.c has this check in it:
if (geteuid()!=0)
die(Must run with EUID=root);
You wouldn't believe how many programs have a check like this and still
work
On 23-Jan-99, 14:11 (CST), Raul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan P Tomer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested
Raul Miller wrote:
Policy should be rather broad in scope and concise in expression.
Amen.
--
see shy jo
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
Why are we going to this trouble? If you want to rename package a1 to a2,
simply make a2 conflict and replace a1 -- dselect or dpkg will do
the rest. If you want to make 'upgrade' automatic, then you'll also
need to upload a new version of the a1
Hi,
About a month ago a developer posted that he had a special boot disk
image in his debian.org home directory to alleviate a hang at install
time, but I can't locate the post now.
Does anyone know the URL?
--
David
I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
*some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.
The tarball is wmsysmon.app, but the binary that gets built is wmsysmon.
I built an (undocumented) manpage for
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 03:25:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
These 'pkgs' will have to remain in the system forever. If someone skips
slink, and goes to potato when that is released, the same problem will occur.
We have to get rid of old practices at some point. We do not need to make the
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, thomas lakofski wrote:
I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
There is nothing wrong with making things easier. Simplicity
is an important technical value. But
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:51:25PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
thomas lakofski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
60 matches
Mail list logo
