Bug#965075: Needs to be fixed in testing also
This bug happened because upstream changed their directory structure and the web server config files needed to be aliased to the new directory where postfixadmin's web interface lives. Thus, the same change that was done to the apache config file should also have been done to the lighttpd configuration file. It's too bad it was fixed only in apache before the fact that lighttpd's config file was suffering from the same issue was noted in the bug report. Now I am caught between either adding lighttpd to this bug and marking the whole thing notfixed, or reporting the lighttpd issue as a separate bug. The former is really more technically correct, since they are both really the same bug, but that is the more invasive os the choices so I chose to report the lighttpd config file issue as a separate bug. It is now opened as #987998. Collectively, #965075 and #987998 should be marked as grave since the bug they represent precludes the package from functioning on nearly all systems. I have marked #965075 as such because while it is currently fixed in unstable, the version in testing is not fixed and it needs to be before postfixadmin is considered for release in Debian 11. I have not also marked #987998 as grave, but please do not backport the fix for this to testing without also fixing #987998.
Bug#926253: Missing templates_c directory
The missing templates_c directory precludes the package from functioning. The original reporter's proposed workaround doesn't properly Debianize the solution, it leaves a directory inside /usr/share that an unprivileged user can write to. It properly belongs in /var/lib/postfixadmin/templates_c. I have changed the severity to grave since this bug "makes the package in question unusable" as installed, and its unusability is a missing piece and not related to its normal configuration. This should be fixed prior to Debian 11's release or the package removed. Retaining the package will only encourage more users to use improper workarounds that may complicate things when the bug is finally and properly fixed and the user upgrades to the fixed version.
Bug#905674: parallel citation-begging issue
Hi Rogerio, I am writing in support of the recent patch to remove the citation message from Debian's version of GNU Parallel. This citation solicitation is actually quite troubling from an academic perspective, not just from a licensing standpoint. The assertion of Mr. Tange, the upstream author, that "[a]cademic tradition requires you to cite works you base your article on" is true, however the active words here are "works" and "base". In this case, when writing an article, the nature of the "work" I would base my article on would be another article. An academic article (in general) is not inherently based on the work of the programmer who wrote some of the software infrastructure used to create or analyze the data. Mr. Tange's assertion that mere use of GNU Parallel constitutes a moral obligation to cite an entry-level self-help tutorial on how to use that software is an egregious mischaracterization of the academic tradition Mr. Tange relies on. Especially, in this case, where the software in question has nothing to do with data analysis or production, but is a middleware parallelization job scheduler. If the article in question is itself on middleware parallelization job schedulers, that's one thing. In virtually every other case the notice is just fishing for something that is highly inappropriate. The correct way of mentioning the software involved is in a footnote, or perhaps in an appendix, when describing how to replicate the results and analysis. You include scripts involved, and the "evidence chain" of the data in such a way. This is problematic for Mr. Tange, however, because footnotes are not tracked. Citations are. Which is clearly why he is fishing for them. Now, the above isn't Debian's problem. This is academia's problem. What is Debian's problem is what will happen if Mr. Tange convinces Debian leadership that the citation-begging notice has to be allowed back in. Because this will open the flood gates to everyone who wants the prestige of being cited in an academic journal. All you have to do is have a minor article on a piece software, it doesn't have to be an academic article - just a how to use it will do, published literally anywhere that is citable, for any software in the processing-chain commonly used in academia. Use a shell script, be prepared to have the Bash authors start putting in citation-begging notices. Arguably those that wrote the actual Linux task schedulers and SMP code are just as worthy of notice as the authors of GNU Parallel. Or GCC, or PERL, or Python. Or how about grep? If this citation-begging notice gets back in to Debian, it will become a far larger issue than just whether or not Mr. Tange is skating on the right side of the GPL/DFSG legalities. Debian is going to have to ask the question on whether advertising in a STDERR message is appropriate at all. I would ask you, if and when this comes up for review with the leadership at Debian, to bring up these issues. It is my hope that Debian will see that it is in their best interest to look at a policy that will exclude this kind of behaviour, before it spreads. Thank-you Regards, Kurt Fitzner
Bug#401439: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc: XFS module will not load
Package: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc Version: 2.6.17-9 Severity: critical Justification: breaks the whole system The following error is returned when attemtping to load the xfs module: FATAL: Error inserting xfs (/lib/modules/2.6.17-2-parisc/kernel/fs/xfs/xfs.ko): Invalid module format dmesg reveals this: module xfs relocation of symbol xfs_iext_destroy is out of range (0x3ffeffeb in 17 bits) This error occured on a PARISC HP 9000 C160 workstation. It is unknown whether it occurs on other PARISC systems. This makes selecing xfs during install impossible. It will, of course, render an existing system unbootable if it uses xfs and upgrades to this kernel. -- System Information: Debian Release: 4.0 APT prefers testing APT policy: (500, 'testing') Architecture: hppa (parisc) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.17-2-parisc Locale: LANG=en_CA.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Versions of packages linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc depends on: ii initramfs-tools [linux-initra 0.85b tools for generating an initramfs ii module-init-tools 3.3-pre3-1 tools for managing Linux kernel mo linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc recommends no packages. -- debconf information: shared/kernel-image/really-run-bootloader: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/failed-to-move-modules-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/initrd-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/bootloader-error-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/elilo-initrd-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/abort-install-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/create-kimage-link-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/old-initrd-link-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/prerm/would-invalidate-boot-loader-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/bootloader-initrd-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/already-running-this-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/old-system-map-link-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/kimage-is-a-directory: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/prerm/removing-running-kernel-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/overwriting-modules-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/depmod-error-initrd-2.6.17-2-parisc: false linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/lilo-has-ramdisk: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/abort-overwrite-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/depmod-error-2.6.17-2-parisc: false linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/bootloader-test-error-2.6.17-2-parisc: linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/postinst/old-dir-initrd-link-2.6.17-2-parisc: true linux-image-2.6.17-2-parisc/preinst/lilo-initrd-2.6.17-2-parisc: true -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
