Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Christian Surchi
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a short time span), but

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a short time span), but

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Josip Rodin
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 12:57:36AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: FWIW, I get virtually no spam through my debian.org e-mail address which is what appears on that page. I am getting a W32.Sircam virus attachment every few hours through [EMAIL PROTECTED] It is beginning to drive me nuts.

upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
Hi, I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have a SONAME. I can't find that precise statement in the policy manual, but section 11.3 says the package must be named librarynamesoversion. If true, what is the procedure for packaging, say Inventor, that builds two shared libs

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Christian Kurz
On 01-07-25 Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread sharkey
I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have a SONAME. Yes, but SONAME just means the name of the .so file. Policy uses this term incorrectly to refer to the extension of the soname. Saying that a shared library must have a SONAME is then equivalent to saying that it must have

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:30:49PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm under the impression that any shared library *must* have a SONAME. Yes, but SONAME just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread sharkey
Yes, but SONAME just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that simple.

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:18:56PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but SONAME just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread sharkey
That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, I'm not using libtool. But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention. So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: 1.

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Steve, On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that simple. There's a good

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 04:41:53PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That is a nice, rational versioning scheme, I agree. I don't see how it fits in this discussion, though. For one thing, I'm not using libtool. But all shared libraries are recommended to follow this convention. So

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? Yes, although this may not be spelled out clearly in

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve Langasek
On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? Yes,

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Matt Zimmerman
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 05:06:58PM -0400, Steve M. Robbins wrote: 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? You mean the tag inside the library itself? Yes. All of the shared libraries I have installed on my machine have an embedded SONAME tag. I thought this was

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 06:18:04PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I think the confusion here is between a SONAME and a library version number. Typically, the library version number is part of the SONAME. What we are speaking of here is libraries which do not have a version number in their

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Christian Surchi
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a short time span), but

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Hamish Moffatt
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus mails in such a short time span), but

Re: About NM, email and spam

2001-07-25 Thread Christian Kurz
On 01-07-25 Hamish Moffatt wrote: On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 01:55:34AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote: I got two already to my home email and one through my debian.org address, all from different people. Now it's funny to see just how far this one is spread already (I never got that many virus

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread sharkey
Yes, but SONAME just means the name of the .so file. OK, now I'm truly confused. I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that simple.

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve Langasek
Hi Steve, On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: I thought a SONAME was something embedded into the shared object file. As I understand things, the SONAME is completely independent of the file name, at least in principle. It's not quite that simple. There's a good

Re: upstream library without a SONAME

2001-07-25 Thread Steve M. Robbins
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 03:50:47PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: On Wed, 25 Jul 2001, Steve M. Robbins wrote: So I guess I'm still searching for the answer to my original questions: 1. Does Debian require a SONAME for a shared lib? Yes, although this may not be spelled out clearly in

two packages I wish some eyeballs on

2001-07-25 Thread idalton
Hello, I asked my sponsor (Gergely Nagy [EMAIL PROTECTED]) about a week ago, haven't heard from him yet. I have two packages I would like to have checked out. Both are at http://www.aom.geek/~idalton/debian/index.html (or ferret.dyndns.org for those who still use ICANN nameservers). Lintian on