On Thursday 01 December 2005 15.32, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
+ - If the author indicates he does not wish to be associated with a
+ post, any identifying information is redacted from that post,
+ and any quotes in subsequent posts, but the rest of the material
+ is published.
On Friday 02 December 2005 14.13, Kevin Locke wrote:
Would it be better to spend our time adding features to the Gnome Power
Manager and equivalents instead of creating a separate program?
The problem here is the *Gnome and equivalents*. IMHO any work spent to
extend the functionality of the
Hi,
(postgrey mailing list: this is totally irrelevant if you're not using
Debian.)
I've just uploaded a new version of the postgrey Debian package - 1.23-2
(really *just* uploaded it. You can get it from
http://fortytwo.ch/debian/postgrey until it appears in unstable.)
postgrey 1.23 has
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 23.31, Kai Hendry wrote:
http://natalian.org/archives/2005/12/14/unstable-is-just-that/
Well, the topic of #debian-devel is quite a standard place to look for up to
the minute information - and is a place developers actually update as they
fix things or notice
On Monday 12 December 2005 14.48, Nico Golde wrote:
So what do you think should I request a removal or wait for
an adopter?
Upstream dead, a few annoying bugs, replacements available in Debian.
I think quite a clear case. Since it still works, I would not do the
wrapper thing Goswin
On Friday 16 December 2005 16.49, Robin wrote:
Is AgSync still being actively developed for Debian ?
I have searched for info and this is the only place I have seem an
info for AgSync...
Looking at the changelog of the Debian package
On Saturday 17 December 2005 09.30, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Dec 17, Christian Perrier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is currently very likely that systems with two network interfaces
will end up with both switched on the installed system after the
reboot. This is of course a blocker.
This
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 10.33, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 17:05 -0500, Joey DePeter wrote:
Hey, can you send me dueling banjos sheet music for the viola, I met
someone and they play the viola and they love it.
Regards,
Martin
This really looks like it's a
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12.23, Thomas Hood wrote:
I don't think that it is ridiculous to require that every package have a
team behind it---i.e., at least two maintainers. First, if someone can't
find ONE other person willing to be named as a co-maintainer of a given
package then I
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 19.24, Russ Allbery wrote:
[mandatory comaintainers]
I think that the energy used to define these sorts of procedures is
probably better used finding a package with a large bug count and
volunteering to work with the maintainer to try to get the bug count
down.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 20.10, Thomas Hood wrote:
It turns out that there is no need for them to be hurt at all. Lone
can carry on working as before and find a co-maintainer who won't get
in his way. But when Lone falls off his horse he'll be glad that Tonto
is nearby.
Except that
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 18.32, David Nusinow wrote:
[teams like gnome, kde, d-i, kernel, ...]
It's pretty simple to found such a team too. All it takes is some
interested people and an alioth project.
And here you say the most important thing: it takes *interested* people.
People
On Thursday 22 December 2005 09.38, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On the other hand, I think there might be some benefit to requiring
that the Maintainer field must always denote one single Debian
developer, who would be the buck stops here guy for that
package. Not an applicant, not a mailing list,
Thomas, sorry for continuing the debate still on this single aspect of Lars'
mail :-)
On Thursday 22 December 2005 10.02, Thomas Hood wrote:
C) Fix bugs that have been reported
For C, Lars discussed different degrees of shift from solitary toward
collective maintainership. In the sequel
On Thursday 22 December 2005 10.55, Frank Küster wrote:
- how many bugs does a package have
- how many have not been dealt with for n months (or days/weeks for RC
bugs)
Changing the default ordering on the bts web pages from bug age to 'last
action age' might already show some effect.
[lots of snippage]
I fear I don't see your point - and I feel you don't see mine.
Here's why I feel *forced* comaintainership is not a solution:
Maintainers divide in
(i) those who already work in teams on their packages
(ii) those who don't.
Ignore (i).
(ii) divides in
(a) those who do a
On Friday 23 December 2005 01.40, Linas Zvirblis wrote:
Thomas Hood wrote:
No-login mode at boot until boot complete:
DELAYLOGIN=yes No-login mode never: rm -f /var/lib/initscripts/nologin
; DELAYLOGIN=no No-login mode always: touch
/var/lib/initscripts/nologin ;
Hi Milan, Jon,
As discussed, 'the Debian project' as such has huge difficulties accepting
hardware donations - offers are often turned down. (tangent - in my opinion
donations should be accepted more liberally and if the Debian
administrators can not be bothered to administer yet another
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Won't work because the problem at hand is exactly that /dev/hdX won't
necessarily be stable anymore.
(and, once more, and much worse:
On Friday 30 December 2005 01.19, Andrew Suffield wrote:
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 05:55:03PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
On Thursday 29 December 2005 14.45, Finn-Arne Johansen wrote:
Would it not be enough for apt if d-i created an fstab that linked
/dev/hdX - /media/cdrom ?
Won't
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
happen sooner.
It would be pretty lame if we couldn't do this in less than a year...
I
On Saturday 31 December 2005 18.48, Osamu Aoki wrote:
[debmake]
As I see in debian-reference:
---
A.3.2 debmake
[...]
However, it's not a bug to use debmake.
---
I should remove last sentence from all translations.
Or just drop mention of debmake alltogether? The description of the
On Monday 02 January 2006 14.48, Gabor Gombas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:16PM +, Darren Salt wrote:
I'd call that broken, just as I consider udev (076) to be broken given
that it breaks expectations wrt device naming. (Here, it swapped the
names of the DVD drives (drivers are
On Monday 02 January 2006 16.21, Alejandro Bonilla wrote:
[...]
I could support or maintain some packages if I could be teached once, and
if the mentoring process to get ownership of one package wouldn't be a
pain. I once wanted to make a package for the ieee80211 stack or another
small
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 00.43, Brian Nelson wrote:
Why don't we use RHEL's kernel, or collaborate with them to maintain a
stable kernel tree, or something?
The real nice thing would be a central mailing list where all kernel
development were coordinated. Perhaps some sort of
On Wednesday 04 January 2006 09.53, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
Better to use a tested and stable kernel in stable whenever it is
released rather than trying to synch to current kernels sometime too
close to release time just for the sake of releasing a semi-current
kernel.
Well
sarge's
On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22.59, Andi Drebes wrote:
Hi there!
[...] As I'm using debian and like it
pretty much, I'd like to add it to the list of packages that debian
oficially provides. The first problem is, that I don't know how to create
debian-packages.
Start here:
On Thursday 05 January 2006 00.29, campanoni simone wrote:
~ - i'd like to try to mantain the wss packet (to learn to mantein
a debian packet)
Start here: http://www.debian.org/devel/
Especially at http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/
Then, for all the details, there is
On Friday 06 January 2006 19.47, Karl Vollmer wrote:
Hello All,
I apologize if this is the incorrect list to use for this purpose,
however a few months back I posted an ITP as I thought I would
actually have time to package up Ampache (http://www.ampache.org)
However that hasn't happened.
Daniel:
is there anybody - preferred German speakers - who is willing and able
to package this OR to give assistance to me (i would try packaging when
there is somone helping me)???
Hi Daniel!
An 'ITP' is supposed to be filed in the Debian bug tracking system. Best
just use the 'reportbug'
On Tuesday 10 January 2006 03:44, Miles Bader wrote:
Juergen Salk [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
According to their package descriptions, we seem to have exactly
six powerful text editors in Debian. These are elvis, jove,
mined, ne, nedit and zed. Emacs, vim and many others do not
belong to
On Monday 09 January 2006 19:20, Bill Allombert wrote:
Here the lists of packages involved in circular dependencies listed by
maintainers.
Just wondering why this wasn't mentioned yet: aren't circular dependencies
causing more work for RM's, too, because the testing migration script can't
On Friday 13 January 2006 16:53, you wrote:
Adrian von Bidder [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From a graph algorithm point of view, if I'm not very mistaken,
dependencies being guaranteed to be a directed graph instead of a
generic graph should allow some simplifications/efficiency
improvements
Do you think your constant bitching is funny? Do you think it achieves
anything?
There are other DDs who are also involved in intense debates and flamewars
very often, but you're the only one where I constantly get the impression
that you're just being childish, insulting and annoying for
On Sunday 15 January 2006 10:27, Sami Haahtinen wrote:
What do you want?
Bugs filed in Debian's bts, with the patches attached and the rationale why
this patch is done.
Just like many DD work with upstream, by pushing non-Debian changes back
actively, and not just saying 'all are changes are
On Saturday 14 January 2006 18:16, Mike Bird wrote:
There was nothing offensive about Andrew's message.
Context.
This debate is not at all about the content of Andrew's message. Somebody
tried to increase the cooperation between Debian and Ubunut in a well-meant
effort (personally, while I
On Sunday 15 January 2006 09:31, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:44:06 +0100, Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 15 January 2006 00:47, Adam Heath wrote:
In fact, both of the last 2 emails to d-d-a go against the AUP.
Procedures should be started to punish the
[ retiring ]
Just in case you missed that part: if you want your account to be closed
etc, please inform the keyring maintainer as per
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-developer-duties.en.html#s3.7
(and with a gpg-signed email, bug on dev-reference being filed.)
cheers
--
On Wednesday 18 January 2006 18:07, Martin Schulze wrote:
Posting permissions to debian-devel-announce revoked after making a
point.
[public announcmement of the above on d-d-a]
Thank you very much. Very well written.
-- vbi
--
The early bird gets the coffee left over from the night
this should be mentioned in the description.
(And I'm just wondering: does it handle both PGP/MIME signed + encrypted as
separate layers, S/MIME style, and also as signed+encrypted OpenPGP blob in
one multipart/encrypted container?)
cheers
-- vbi
--
pub 1024D/92082481 2002-02-22 Adrian von Bidder
On Sunday 05 February 2006 03:58, gregor herrmann wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: gregor herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: libmail-gnupg-perl
GnuPG::Interface can process or create PGP signed or encrypted
email.
Oh, and: either it's Mail::GnuPG here or the
On Monday 06 February 2006 19:53, Gustavo Franco wrote:
On 2/6/06, Ian Jackson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ filing automatic package tests to the Debian bts ]
The Ubuntu maintainer should always open bugs with the test related stuff
and see if the Debian maintainer judge it's valuable or not.
On Monday 20 February 2006 07:40, Christian Perrier wrote:
So, I hereby propose to think about a possible TTF fonts packaging
team.
A comment as a pure user insofar as fonts are concerned: I don't care if
what I see comes from a ttf, metafont, ps, bdf or PEX font. I just want
the font to be
On Thursday 02 March 2006 04:46, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
Package: libacme-brainfck-perl
Provides: libacme-brainfuck-perl
Ah, and back to the time when some words where magic and caused burn marks
on the paper around the ink.
I never have and probably never will see why some people find 'f*ck'
ObIntro: I add my thanks to all the others'
On Thursday 09 March 2006 14:38, Gustavo Franco wrote:
What's wrong with us ? I just read some messages with a no Martin,
can we revert it?, it seems that the default reply is ok Martin, see
you, thanks..
It's volunteer work, he's free to do
On Thursday 09 March 2006 18:41, Amaya wrote:
... focus on attacking Ubuntu
Ah, yes, we need an enemy so we can unite against it. Old-fashioned
tactics, proved to work.
-- vbi
/me is trying to imagine the Debian project's members trying to agree on an
enemy...
--
One picture is worth 128K
On Saturday 11 March 2006 03:27, Kevin Mark wrote:
[DPL as mediator]
The DPL already could do that. The DPL probably in the past *did* step in
in some cases behind the scenese. There's no reason for the technical
overhead of a mediator@ email alias - there's leader, and people who trust
the
On Saturday 11 March 2006 09:10, Kevin Mark wrote:
-- vbi:
Kevin:
[mediation]
After the meeting everyone would agree to not discuss anything in
public and only redress further problems by arranging another private
irc session.
Hmm. I agree with you that solving these problems is
On Wednesday 22 March 2006 18:06, Daniel Gimpelevich wrote:
[challenge response email systems]
Would I be wrong in deciding not to make this
confirmation?
Easy enough: if you receive a confirmation request identifying the message
far enough for you to decide that it was spam with your email
On Thursday 23 March 2006 00:56, Frans Pop wrote:
Myself, I'm a KDE user currently, so why do I not propose to sync
Debian's release to their release schedule? Or why not MySQL, or Apache
or ...? Because I happen to know that releasing Debian involves a bit
more than waiting for random
Yo!
No idea what this [below] is about exactly, but are you aware of the newly
formed Debian fonts task-force? Mailing list is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Greetings
-- vbi
On Friday 24 March 2006 19:19, Anthony Fok wrote:
Will Newton wrote:
This package hasn't had a maintainer upload in 12 months.
On Sunday 26 March 2006 20:18, Nico Golde wrote:
Hi,
what would be the appropriate way to handle large and old
debian changelog files.
Rather arbitrarily, just feels more or less safe: cut everything from
before oldstable release. Based on the assumption that oldstable - stable
updates
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 18:15, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Mar 28, Gabor Gombas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about restarting syslog (or it's equivalent) after relocating the
old /dev? glibc already has infrastructure for restarting services on
upgrade, maybe udev can borrow that.
Harder than
Hi,
Is master just hopelessly overloaded, or is popcon defunct? I get bounces
('warning: msg not delivered after 24h') from master.
cheers
-- vbi
--
featured link: http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/intro
pgpwfLEDQFM2a.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Friday 08 August 2003 04:09, Scott James Remnant wrote:
Thanks a lot for this one.
-- vbi
--
I'm personally quite happy with one stable release every two years, and
am of the opinion that trying to release more will mean we'll have to
rename the distro from stable to wobbly.
-- Scott
On Friday 10 December 2004 06.15, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
John Goerzen dijo [Thu, Dec 09, 2004 at 09:40:51PM -0600]:
we could participate in this organization even if we didn't take
their packages? That is, perhaps we could influence the direction to
a more useful one?
Then we would be
On Friday 10 December 2004 15.35, Steve Langasek wrote:
we don't exactly have a strong history of being able to pull off
timely releases
Did Debian even try?
I didn't follow the woody release too closely, being a Debian newbie at the
time, so I don't know. But - this was my impression - from
On Friday 10 December 2004 13.20, Frank Kster wrote:
Rene Mayrhofer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am still thinking about doing an upgrade package of freeswan
though, which depends on openswan and simply moves the configuration of
the old freeswan configuration to openswan. Any preferences
Yo all!
Seeing this discussion wander in many directions, please consider what is
acutally under discussion here:
Bruce:
I would not suggest that Debian commit to using LCC packages at this
time. We should participate for a while and see how many changes we'd
have to make and whether the
On Thursday 16 December 2004 00.34, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
[de-installing run-level links that weren't installed]
How about installing links as /etc/rc?.d/K??foo - so the links are there and
are properly manageable, but the init script will only be called as 'K??foo
stop'
-- vbi
--
Segunda
On Friday 24 December 2004 11.01, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 09:21:08PM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
I was trying to think of a word for news you need to know now and will
not be of much use to you in the far future.
debian-devel? :-P
No, that's news you don't
On Thursday 30 December 2004 10.07, Maciej Dems wrote:
please notify, that many ITPs
are done by non-DDs. In this case the main reason for their inactivity is
the lack of a sponsor.
IMHO for such ITPs, the RFS should be cc:ed to the bug, so anybody reviewing
the ITP would see that it's not
On Wednesday 05 January 2005 22.55, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:43:05PM +0100, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
An ascii to postscript renderer
...
I think you want to say plaintext to postscript renderer here, since
clearly text that contains non-ascii
On Thursday 06 January 2005 08.01, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
Now, switchconf is too simple. It does very little, but does not do it
very well. I originally intended to work with it to make it much more
robust... But in the end, I didn't get around to do it.
IMHO removing it is the right solution.
On Wednesday 02 February 2005 06.35, Brian M. Carlson wrote:
I think you meant to ask, Why would anyone want to execute the C
library?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /lib/libc.so.6
Ok, this is off topic for this thread, but still, strangely:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ /lib/ld-2.3.2.so
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 21.49, Raphael Bossek wrote:
Message was signed by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF).
Warning: The signature is bad.
Something's broken somewhere...
Can anybody confirm so I can stop worrying about my set up?
thanks
-- vbi
--
Press CTRL-ALT-DEL to
On Friday 04 March 2005 23.57, sean finney wrote:
anyone who is tired of having to spend hours maintaining their
home-rolled mysql/pgsql mangement maintainer script code is whole
heartedly encouraged to check this out!
*applaudes heartily*
That's sorely needed. Now I hope that the point
tags 296693 +unreproducible
thanks
On Saturday 05 March 2005 00.16, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Can a user with an i386 attempt to reproduce the bug and report back?
I appear to be able to use gnucash just fine, I checked all the library
versions in the bug report and adjusted my system
On Tuesday 08 March 2005 15.55, Javier Fernndez-Sanguino Pea wrote:
Further: do not accept every package to enter Debian...
Should be done, but if ftp-maintainers take this decissions they get
bashed on the basis of them preventing freedom. And we're back again to
the pointless hot-babe
On Wednesday 09 March 2005 06.39, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
There is another problem with NEW: The US laws.
Untill a package has been processed through NEW and a mail send to
some goverment agency Debian runs risk of violating the crypto export
laws.
I've already proposed this: if silly
On Monday 14 March 2005 05.45, Steve Langasek wrote:
Architectures that are no longer being considered for stable releases
are not going to be left out in the cold. The SCC infrastructure is
intended as a long-term option for these other architectures, and the
ftpmasters also intend to provide
On Tuesday 19 August 2003 08:49, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm all for aggressive goals, let's aim for sometime in December -- how
about 2003-12-01 00:00:00 UTC?
Do you have some Official Opinion(tm)[1] as the RM about what KDE, gcc, X,
gnome versions will be in sarge?
greetings
-- vbi
[1]
On Thursday 21 August 2003 13:36, Christian Perrier wrote:
I like having a significant following in the former Iron Curtain
countries. So the two major former Iron Curtain countries seem to
be France and Germany.. :-)
Well, part of Germany was on the far side of the Iron Curtain regardless of
On Wednesday 20 August 2003 09:49, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
... what KDE, gcc, X,
gnome versions will be in sarge?
And what about postfix? 2.0 is in unstable quite a while and works ok. I guess
it will make it to sarge.
cheers
-- vbi
--
Jack Nicklaus hit a golf shot that only gravity kept
On Monday 25 August 2003 04:02, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
I can think off-hand of at least one other security related tool that
needs frequent updating of a ruleset: nessus. It is an active probing
clamav needs to update its virus definitons - it's exactly the same case
again.
-- vbi
--
On Friday 29 August 2003 10:29, wrote:
debian-develHi
Where can I find the source code on sh4 for Debian linux
http://www.m17n.org/linux-sh/debian/ and go from there.
greetings
-- vbi
--
Sterility is inherited. If your parents never had kids, odds are you
wont either.
--
On Saturday 04 October 2003 02:25, Glenn Maynard wrote:
(B[...]
(B I do think having a list of native DD names would be novel, at least,
(B but it would have to be manually maintained.
(B
(BPerhaps have DDs just put their name in original form in the changelog.Debian?
(B(Ok, I would want
QA/MIA people: are you reading this (below)? Or Thomas - perhaps you have
time to dropa a quick note yourself?
cheers
-- vbi
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 23:46, Richard Levitte - VMS Whacker wrote:
Hello,
I wonder if there's a way to figure out what the status of the
monotone package is. The
On Friday 07 April 2006 15:43, jean wrote:
hi,
i'm trying to create a package for sarge (it is my first experience in
packet creation ), i tried to do this from an existing packet, i have
decompacted the packet, i modified some things, and i re-packaged the
folder.
As others have said: you'd
On Sunday 09 April 2006 10:45, Michael Banck wrote:
Hi,
[libuninameslist]
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:26:15AM +0300, K?stutis Bili?nas wrote:
I'd be very glad if someone of you could sponsor them for me.
Thanks for your contribution to Debian, but sponsorship requests should
go to
On Wednesday 12 April 2006 00:23, Ben Hutchings wrote:
* Package name: rt2x00
This package would contain version 2 of the rt2x00 drivers that are
currently distributed as separate rt2400 and rt2500 packages (and a
proposed rt2570 package).
Did you talk with Aurelien (maintainer of
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 10:37, you wrote:
The stable version installed so easily and well I just
couldn't believe it. It is now far easier to install Debian than
Windows XP - yes - really. And I'm not a regular Linux user.
What praise. Thank you very much!
I just had to laugh out loud,
On Thursday 27 April 2006 21:53, Ralf Treinen wrote:
The constraint solving algorithm is complete, that is it finds a
solution whenever there exists one, even for multiple disjunctive
dependencies and deep package conflicts. This problem is computationally
intractable in theory (that is,
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 16:21, Daniel Schepler wrote:
Le Mardi 09 Mai 2006 22:49, Bill Allombert a écrit :
Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers debian-qt-kde@lists.debian.org
...
libkcal2b
libkdepim1a
It looks like these two have circular dependencies because libkdepim
depends on
On Monday 05 June 2006 18:18, Eto Yasuo wrote:
hi
I just a thought search debian/ include package.
I'd try the idea out, use gonzui.
http://debian-src.devel.jp
Nice idea.
What exactly is included in the search? All source packages? All binary
source packages? Debian mailing list
Marc cc:ed, not sure if you're on the list.
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:06, Marc Chantreux wrote:
I've posted a patch to fix #350119, #342008, #350119 139 days ago and
have no news about it. I tried to contact the apache team to know if i
was able to help but i have no news.
There is the
On Thursday 15 June 2006 16:06, Marc Chantreux wrote:
Is there a way to help/join/have news from the apache team ?
Have you tried contacting the apache maintainers directly? (I'd cc such
mails to the [EMAIL PROTECTED] list, just for the record)
The changelog.Debian.gz of apache2 and apache
On Friday 16 June 2006 13:52, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
The upgrade to the new egroupware upstream drops several applications
[...] On the other hand, if a sarge-etch
upgrade potentially throws away a bunch of functionality and data, users
won't be happy.
What to do?
Rename the package,
On Sunday 18 June 2006 07:51, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
[...]
Without knowing or having asked Adam, this seems like help might be
welcome.
Useful patches and comments are always welcome. Threats of NMUs and
similar aren't.
Tollef, you realise that neither me nor Marc (who has started this
On Monday 03 July 2006 17:16, Fathi Boudra wrote:
Hi Reinhard,
Perhaps you are interested in joining the pkg-wpa team on alioth [1]?
[...]
There's many K wireless tools but none really perfect maybe
we can cooperate to have only one good tool nicely integrated with
wpa_supplicant.
Yodel!
On Sun, 09 Jul 2006 21:51, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
^
[... package doesn't exist, perhaps somebody on [EMAIL PROTECTED] has time to
do
the package? ... ]
On Sunday 09 July 2006 22:17, you wrote:
^
Done.
Now that is what I call response
On Sunday 09 July 2006 15:48, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
[greylisting]
The point was about mailers sending mail to debian. If they receive a
4xx they have to queue the mail and retry later. It's cheap for
debian, but expensive for everyone else.
Does anybody have sensible numbers about
On Monday 10 July 2006 02:17, Matthew R. Dempsky wrote:
On Sun, Jul 09, 2006 at 05:02:39PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Another problem is with hosts that do not accept a message from an MTA
unless that MTA is willing to accept replies. This is a common spam
prevention measure.
It
On Monday 10 July 2006 06:58, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Doing sender verification and graylisting are both violations of the
RFCs.
Which rfcs and where, exactly? Specific filename, version and line numbers,
as Kimball would say it.
AFAICT, the protocol allows the receiving end to
[sending systems that don't deal with greylisting]
On Monday 17 July 2006 17:36, Magnus Holmgren wrote:
[...]
Also, this kind of information can be
shared so that not every mail admin has to find it out himself by users
complaining.
Some data points:
* the default greylist shipped by
On Monday 17 July 2006 17:00, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 01:18:41PM +, Marc Brockschmidt wrote:
There was a new request for another approved release goal, that is NFS
v4 support. We approved that goal.
AFAICS, that goal has been completed for a while.
Small
Apart from the fact that the opinions seem to be set (and haven't really
changed since the last time the discussion came up IIRC, so we really can
stop arguing - nothing new for quite some time...): am I correct in my
observation that nobody who has participated in this discussion up to now
is
On Wednesday 19 July 2006 00:13, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Bushnell BSG said:
Loïc Minier [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can we get greylisting now?
We have it, duh. Have you not been paying attention?
We don't have it yet. Have you not been paying
On Tuesday 25 July 2006 19:22, Jeremy Herndon wrote:
We have used 10 toy stoy names over a period of 10 years. That is a good
round number and would be a logical place to start anew.
Logical? Hmm, well, as far as I know logic has something to do with
causes and effects, which I can't see
On Monday 31 July 2006 08:18, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
I
believe there are a large percentage of machines without
popularity-contest installed for all the architectures, and that this
do not skew the result significantly for any of the architecture.
I'd be prepared to believe *some* bias
1 - 100 of 308 matches
Mail list logo
