Don Armstrong d...@debian.org writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2012, Gergely Nagy wrote:
FWIW, /etc/default/* and /etc/$package/conf.d/* and similar already
do something *very* close to what etc-overrides-non-etc does. To the
point that changing a file under /etc/default, or adding a snippet
to
On 2012-04-24 18:22, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
|
| I noticed you started to file bugs for non-working debcheckouts. Was
| this discussed anywhere as suggested by the developer's reference[1]?
Hi Ansgar,
There are only handful of packages that mistakenly have their Vcs-*
headers set up incorrectly
]] Uoti Urpala
Hi,
Wrong: as mentioned in this thread before, one of the advantages of the
etc-overrides-lib model is the option of having a file in /etc that
first includes the one in /lib, then overrides just one particular
value. This allows handling more updates without needing manual
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du jeudi 10 mai 2012, vers 20:29,
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org disait :
I do not know about trivially merging changes in the etc-overrides-lib
model, but in the current model, I am presented with the dpkg prompt
about
]] Steve Langasek
My complaint is that this is excessively ugly. For persistent variable data
that needs to be available during early boot, even when this is binary data
that the user won't edit, /etc is the normal place to keep it - it's the
creation of a a .cache subdirectory that I
On May 11, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Wrong: since you have to copy the whole file to override it, and files
in /lib have no conffiles handling, after an upgrade you will not know
what was changed by you and what was changed upstream.
I think everyone here agrees with that.
On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:30:56 +0300, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 10, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
Agree. Copying a large set of default policies into /etc just because
they *can* be overridden is not user friendly. And it does not make the
On 05/11/2012 12:53 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
The reason why most old applications do not follow that approach (at
least not yet) is pretty obvious: their authors never considered it.
etc-overrides-lib semantics have only become a seriously considered
alternative fairly recently.
No.
The
On 05/11/2012 04:04 AM, David Weinehall wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 02:44:45AM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/10/2012 04:52 AM, Steve McIntyre wrote:
No, really - please *do* do this. The fact that a lot of the software
coming out of RedHat development seems to be designed
On 05/11/2012 04:21 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
Advantages I mentioned earlier would still be there:
It's easier to see what is local non-default configuration. Original
default file is always available in a known location (and very easy to
revert to, temporarily for testing or permanently).
As I
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 12:53 AM, Uoti Urpala wrote:
The reason why most old applications do not follow that approach (at
least not yet) is pretty obvious: their authors never considered it.
etc-overrides-lib semantics have only become a seriously considered
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Uoti Urpala
Hi,
Wrong: as mentioned in this thread before, one of the advantages of the
etc-overrides-lib model is the option of having a file in /etc that
first includes the one in /lib, then overrides just one particular
value. This allows
Philip Hands p...@hands.com writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2012 21:30:56 +0300, Uoti Urpala uoti.urp...@pp1.inet.fi
wrote:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 10, Bjørn Mork bj...@mork.no wrote:
Agree. Copying a large set of default policies into /etc just because
they *can* be overridden is not
]] Gergely Nagy
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Uoti Urpala
Hi,
Wrong: as mentioned in this thread before, one of the advantages of the
etc-overrides-lib model is the option of having a file in /etc that
first includes the one in /lib, then overrides just one
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_file
In computing, configuration files, or config files configure the initial
settings for some computer programs. They are used for user applications,
server processes and operating system settings.
On May 11, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
And in etc-overrides-lib, config files still remain in /etc. Its just
the defaults that live elsewhere. That the defaults are files, and are
under /lib, is an implementation detail, similarly how gconf defaults
live under
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:52:25AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Neither the FHS, nor the policy says anything about etc-overrides-lib as
far as I can see. Neither pro or con. Do feel free to point me to the
relevant section, would I be mistaken.
To be honest, I still don’t really understand what
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:25:10AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Are you happy with dropping a snippet into a conf.d/ directory, and your
software breaking on an upgrade without notice? Because that can happen
even now, with software that uses only /etc, and /etc alone for their
configuration,
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Gergely Nagy
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Uoti Urpala
Hi,
Wrong: as mentioned in this thread before, one of the advantages of the
etc-overrides-lib model is the option of having a file in /etc that
first includes the one in
On 11/05/2012 08:47, Vincent Bernat wrote:
OoO Pendant le journal télévisé du jeudi 10 mai 2012, vers 20:29,
Jean-Christophe Dubacq jean-christophe.dub...@ens-lyon.org disait :
I do not know about trivially merging changes in the etc-overrides-lib
model, but in the current model, I am
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 12:07:55PM +0200, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
BTW, for standard workstations, there is less and less need to change
things in /etc. My current quota is 1346 files in /etc for about 30 of
them with local changes. This is quite a bad signal/noise ratio.
Well, a standard
Stephan Seitz stse+deb...@fsing.rootsland.net writes:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:25:10AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Are you happy with dropping a snippet into a conf.d/ directory, and your
software breaking on an upgrade without notice? Because that can happen
even now, with software that uses
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
I use etckeeper to do that, but it's a bit tiresome to isolate all local
changes (I have to save the diffs somewhere) (and a lost hope if
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On May 11, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
And in etc-overrides-lib, config files still remain in /etc. Its just
the defaults that live elsewhere. That the defaults are files, and are
under /lib, is an implementation detail, similarly how gconf
Stephan Seitz stse+deb...@fsing.rootsland.net writes:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:52:25AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Neither the FHS, nor the policy says anything about etc-overrides-lib as
far as I can see. Neither pro or con. Do feel free to point me to the
relevant section, would I be
On 05/11/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Neither the FHS, nor the policy says anything about etc-overrides-lib as
far as I can see. Neither pro or con. Do feel free to point me to the
relevant section, would I be mistaken.
Section 10.7.2 of dpm:
Any configuration files created or used
On 05/11/2012 05:25 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
And in etc-overrides-lib, config files still remain in /etc.
No.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
On 05/11/2012 06:39 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
In other words, it does *exactly* the same thing systemd is
criticised for.
Which doesn't mean that it's a good practice.
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble?
On 05/11/2012 06:39 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
changes, which potentially, will make it horrible to manage
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
I use etckeeper to do that, but it's a bit tiresome to isolate all local
changes (I have to save
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 04:52 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Neither the FHS, nor the policy says anything about etc-overrides-lib as
far as I can see. Neither pro or con. Do feel free to point me to the
relevant section, would I be mistaken.
Section 10.7.2 of dpm:
Hi all,
There is no any reply in debian-mentors mailing list, so I am forwarding my
message here. Please Cc me in replies, I am not subscribed to debian-devel.
begin original message
2012-05-10 21:08, Boris Pek wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have strange problem with my package
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 06:39 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
In other words, it does *exactly* the same thing systemd is
criticised for.
Which doesn't mean that it's a good practice.
Tell me what you would gain, if there were no files under /lib/systemd,
and
Philip Hands wrote:
The traditional Debian approach to /etc is largely self documenting, to
the extent that one can generally walk into a site cold and (having
established that they have decent backups) cheerfully do an upgrade on
their Debian servers without anything breaking (I do this
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 04:39:22PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[snip]
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_file
In computing, configuration files, or config files configure the initial
settings for some computer programs. They are used for user applications,
server processes
On May 11, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
Apparently the reason is that you do not understand the problem, since
you keep getting back to the not relevant issue of software which
supports placing configuration directives in
On May 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
changes, which potentially, will make it horrible to
]] Thomas Goirand
On 05/11/2012 06:39 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
changes, which potentially, will make
Am 11.05.2012 14:30, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
The problem with etc-overrides-lib is that a file must be copied in
full from /lib to /etc to be modified, and then future changes to the
same file in /lib will be ignored (so maybe the package will break
because these changes are required, etc).
Package: wnpp
Owner: Hendrik Tews hend...@askra.de
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: prooftree
Version : 0.9
Upstream Author : Hendrik Tews
* URL or Web page : http://askra.de/software/prooftree/
* License : GPL-3
Description : proof tree visualization for Proof
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
I use etckeeper to do that, but it's a bit tiresome to isolate all
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 06:39 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
changes, which
Am 11.05.2012 14:30, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
The problem with etc-overrides-lib is that a file must be copied in
full from /lib to /etc to be modified, and then future changes to the
same file in /lib will be ignored (so maybe the package will break
because these changes are required, etc).
I think it would be nice if power saving options (SATA,USB,wireless
etc.) were turned on by default when running on laptop.
Powertop can report which kernel tunables are set (and you can use it to
turn individual options on/off).
Laptop task installs pm-utils by default.
There is also optional
]] Gergely Nagy
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Gergely Nagy
In that case, the including file can be changed (by the admin) to be a
separate file, that does not include, and get the usual conffile
conflict dpkg prompt.
How would that work?
I have
On May 11, Michael Biebl bi...@debian.org wrote:
You can either copy the file or use the .include directive (which was
already mentioned) and only override the settings you need.
Not with udev or kmod.
The problem with etc-overrides-lib is that a file must be copied in
full from /lib to
On 05/11/2012 08:30 PM, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
On 05/11/2012 08:33 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.05.2012 14:30, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
The problem with etc-overrides-lib is that a file must be copied in
full from /lib to /etc to be modified, and then future changes to the
same file in /lib will be ignored (so maybe the package will
On 05/11/2012 08:28 PM, David Weinehall wrote:
Talking about yourself in pluralis majestatis now?
Yes, I get it that you are. Or are you somehow assuming that you can
speak for all of Debian? I guess you're aware of the fact that I'm a DD
too?
By reading other replies, I thought there
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: B. Clausius ba...@gmx.de
* Package name: gedit-projects
Version : 1.1
Upstream Author : B. Clausius ba...@gmx.de
* URL : https://launchpad.net/gedit-projects
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Python
Description
On 05/11/2012 07:04 PM, Gergely Nagy wrote:
Steve McIntyre st...@einval.com writes:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
I use etckeeper to do that, but it's a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: B. Clausius ba...@gmx.de
* Package name: gedit-classbrowser3g
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : B. Clausius ba...@gmx.de
* URL : https://launchpad.net/gedit-classbrowser3g
* License : GPL-3+
Programming Lang: Python
On 11.05.2012 14:59, Touko Korpela wrote:
I think it would be nice if power saving options (SATA,USB,wireless
etc.) were turned on by default when running on laptop.
Powertop can report which kernel tunables are set (and you can use it to
turn individual options on/off).
Laptop task installs
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On May 11, Nikolaus Rath nikol...@rath.org wrote:
Wrong: since you have to copy the whole file to override it, and files
in /lib have no conffiles handling, after an upgrade you will not know
what was changed by you and what was changed upstream.
I
On Friday 11 May 2012 06:29 PM, Touko Korpela wrote:
I think it would be nice if power saving options (SATA,USB,wireless
etc.) were turned on by default when running on laptop.
Powertop can report which kernel tunables are set (and you can use it to
turn individual options on/off).
Laptop
* Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org [120511 04:45]:
On 05/11/2012 04:04 AM, David Weinehall wrote:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Configuration_file
In computing, configuration files, or config files configure the initial
settings for some computer programs. They are used for user
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: rake-compiler
Version : 0.8.1
Upstream Author : Luis Lavena
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/luislavena/rake-compiler
* License : Expat
Description : Rake-based Ruby
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-albino
Version : 1.3.3
Upstream Author : Chris Wanstrath
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/github/albino
* License : Expat
Description : Ruby wrapper for pygments
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-classifier
Version : 1.3.3
Upstream Author : Lucas Carlson, David Fayram II, Cameron McBride
* URL or Web page : http://classifier.rufy.comp
* License : LGPL-2.0+
Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net writes:
I would much rather we had a more general mechanism of storing the real
configuration files (as opposed to just md5s) by dpkg itself, which
would enable proper merging of admin changes between old and new
conffiles, and perhaps also allow dpkg to
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-fast-stemmer
Version : 1.0.1
Upstream Author : Roman Shterenzon
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/romanbsd/fast-stemmer
* License : Expat
Description : Ruby module
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Section 10.7.2 of dpm:
Any configuration files created or used by your package must reside in
|/etc|.
Configuration file is a term of art that is previously defined in the
Policy document. It doesn't mean what you're taking it to mean.
There isn't
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-directory-watcher
Version : 1.4.1
Upstream Author : Tim Pease
* URL or Web page : http://gemcutter.org/gems/directory_watcher
* License : Expat
Description : Watch
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-posix-spawn
Version : 0.3.6
Upstream Author : Ryan Tomayko, Aman Gupta
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/rtomayko/posix-spawn
* License : LGPL-2.1+, Expat
Description
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-redcarpet
Version : 2.1.1
Upstream Author : Natacha Porte', Vincent Marti
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/tanoku/redcarpet
* License : Expat
Description : Fast,
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: jekyll
Version : 0.11.2
Upstream Author : Tom Preston-Werner
* URL or Web page : http://github.com/mojombo/jekyll
* License : Expat
Description : Simple, blog aware, static
On 11/05/2012 15:29, Thomas Goirand wrote:
The setting of unix rights 0440 is indeed very amusing.
Yes. Maybe the mean to chmod a-w everything, for some applications will
not work with so large modes (sudo, for example).
The only nice point about this proposal is that it's going to make happy
On 05/11/2012 11:08 PM, Marvin Renich wrote:
For clarity, the etc-overrides-non-etc model that I am talking about is
where the file in /etc can override individual values, not where the
file in /etc must replace the entirety of the non-etc configuration.
This case is much much more
On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 01:12:37 +0900, Youhei SASAKI wrote:
Package: wnpp
Owner: Youhei SASAKI uwab...@gfd-dennou.org
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: ruby-posix-spawn
Do you really need a whole package for a single syscall wrapper?
Cheers,
Julien
signature.asc
Description:
On 05/12/2012 12:22 AM, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
I find your attitude assumes users always have the knowledge and the
time to investigate everything. This is not the reality.
Sincerly,
Not at all. Anyone without the knowledge will not be able to
restore anything anyway.
Anyone with
On 11/05/2012 19:03, Thomas Goirand wrote:
On 05/12/2012 12:22 AM, Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
I find your attitude assumes users always have the knowledge and the
time to investigate everything. This is not the reality.
Sincerly,
Not at all. Anyone without the knowledge will not be
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
Seriously, can't someone who broke his configuration wget the package,
and use mc to get into the .deb and get the original configuration
file???
FWIW, I'd love an easier way to keep track of my /etc, where upstream
changes and my own are on a separate
m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) writes:
On May 11, Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org wrote:
Long story short, I still don't see what the fuss is about.
The fuss is about we're being told that there will be silent
overwriting of configuration files without being prompted about
changes, which
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 08:33 PM, Michael Biebl wrote:
Am 11.05.2012 14:30, schrieb Marco d'Itri:
The problem with etc-overrides-lib is that a file must be copied in
full from /lib to /etc to be modified, and then future changes to the
same file in /lib
OoO Peu avant le début de l'après-midi du vendredi 11 mai 2012, vers
13:20, Gergely Nagy alger...@balabit.hu disait :
In other words, it does *exactly* the same thing systemd is
criticised for.
Which doesn't mean that it's a good practice.
Tell me what you would gain, if there were
SEEWEB - Marco d'Itri m...@seeweb.it writes:
But this is a user error. The point is that with etc-overrides-lib there
is no prompt at all when the upstream configuration changes.
Bzzt. There's no prompt ever when upstream defaults change. Unless *all*
the defaults are laid out in /etc, *AND*
Thomas Goirand z...@debian.org writes:
On 05/11/2012 11:08 PM, Marvin Renich wrote:
For clarity, the etc-overrides-non-etc model that I am talking about is
where the file in /etc can override individual values, not where the
file in /etc must replace the entirety of the non-etc configuration.
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Gergely Nagy
Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no writes:
]] Gergely Nagy
In that case, the including file can be changed (by the admin) to be a
separate file, that does not include, and get the usual conffile
conflict dpkg prompt.
How would
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
The FHS is very specific that /etc is for *Host-specific* system
configuration, not upstream defaults or distribution-specific
configuration. The clear intent is that this is where files that are
intended to be modified by the
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org writes:
What *is* an issue is when upstreams decide to ship their defaults in
/usr, but require users to duplicate information between /usr templates
and /etc config files and ignore the contents of /usr in favor of the
contents of /etc. This is also not a
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [120511 16:17]:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:08:32AM -0400, Marvin Renich wrote:
The FHS is very specific that /etc is for *Host-specific* system
No, this is a total retcon. When the FHS was written, this was definitely
NOT a shared understanding of a
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Stefan Handschuh handschuh.ste...@googlemail.com
* Package name: libballoontip-java
Version : 1.2.1
Upstream Author : Bernhard Pauler bernhard_pau...@dev.java.net, Tim
Molderez nfe...@dev.java.net
* URL :
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Russ Allbery wrote:
I think the core question is: why is base-files special? Yes, it's
essential and all, but that doesn't address the case of packages being
downloaded separate from Debian, or unpacked by hand, in which case we
don't
On Fri, 2012-05-11 at 13:41:32 +0100, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 11:53:34AM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
If dpkg kept a copy of the original configuration file (to be retrieved
at all times), it would be easier to spot local changes.
I use
Michael Gilbert michael.s.gilb...@gmail.com writes:
So, I think [0] is the most astute message in that thread.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-policy/2000/11/msg00251.html
I thought that too when I first read it, but later in the thread are very
cogent arguments for why it's wrong and
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 10:10:17PM -0400, Michael Gilbert a écrit :
Succinctly, the copyright file itself is irrelevant in the source
package since the upstream source should have all of that information
already, and at least for the GPL you can distribute source packages
as is. Thus, the
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
-- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
copyright file is not necessary from a strictly legal point of view.
I don't see the logical justification for
Le Fri, May 11, 2012 at 07:52:05PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit :
Charles Plessy ple...@debian.org writes:
given that the source and binary packages are considered a single entity
-- otherwise we would be violating the GPLs v1 and v2 -- the Debian
copyright file is not necessary from a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 07:43:05 +0200
Source: lxpolkit
Binary: lxpolkit lxpolkit-dbg
Architecture: source i386
Version: 0.1.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian LXDE Maintainers lxde-deb...@lists.lxde.org
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 19:27:20 -0700
Source: conky
Binary: conky conky-std conky-cli
Architecture: source all amd64
Version: 1.9.0-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Vincent Cheng vincentc1...@gmail.com
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 08:03:06 +0200
Source: sitplus
Binary: sitplus sitplus-data
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 1.0.3-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Debian Med Packaging Team
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 23:49:34 +0200
Source: libgtkada
Binary: libgtkada2.24.1-dev libgnomeada2.24.1-dev libgtkglada2.24.1-dev
libgtkada-dbg libgnomeada-dbg libgtkglada-dbg libgtkada2.24.1 libgnomeada2.24.1
libgtkglada2.24.1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 20:49:21 +0200
Source: smarty-gettext
Binary: smarty-gettext
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.0b1-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Mike Gabriel mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de
Changed-By: Mike
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:10:08 +0200
Source: db
Binary: db5.1-doc libdb5.1-dev libdb5.1 db5.1-util db5.1-sql-util libdb5.1++
libdb5.1++-dev libdb5.1-tcl libdb5.1-dbg libdb5.1-java-jni libdb5.1-java
libdb5.1-java-gcj libdb5.1-java-dev
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 04 May 2012 12:05:48 +0400
Source: libiscsi
Binary: libiscsi1 libiscsi-dev libiscsi-bin
Architecture: source i386
Version: 1.4.0-1
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Michael Tokarev m...@tls.msk.ru
Changed-By:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Tue, 01 May 2012 11:45:05 +0200
Source: lua-cgi
Binary: lua-cgi liblua5.1-cgi0 liblua5.1-cgi-dev
Architecture: source all
Version: 5.1.4+dfsg-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Enrico Tassi gareuselesi...@debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 03 May 2012 20:49:47 +0200
Source: lua-copas
Binary: lua-copas liblua5.1-copas0 liblua5.1-copas-dev
Architecture: source all
Version: 1.1.6-5
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Enrico Tassi gareuselesi...@debian.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Format: 1.8
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:08:21 +0200
Source: lua-svn
Binary: lua-svn lua-svn-dev liblua5.1-svn1 liblua5.1-svn-dev
Architecture: source amd64 all
Version: 0.4.0-6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Enrico Tassi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 10:32:07 +0200
Source: nvidia-cuda-toolkit
Binary: nvidia-cuda-toolkit nvidia-cuda-doc nvidia-cuda-gdb
nvidia-visual-profiler nvidia-cuda-dev nvidia-opencl-dev libcudart4 libcublas4
libcufft4 libcusparse4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Format: 1.8
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 21:01:53 +0200
Source: smarty-validate
Binary: smarty-validate
Architecture: source all
Version: 3.0.3-2
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: low
Maintainer: Mike Gabriel mike.gabr...@das-netzwerkteam.de
Changed-By:
1 - 100 of 196 matches
Mail list logo
