Bug#24514: 3 diff's to compile dpkg-1.4.0.24 on HP-UX
tag 24514 pending thanks Hi, On Mon, 1998-07-13 at 15:59:34 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Package: dpkg > > Following patches are included below: > 1) dpkg1.diff > This patch suppesses error output from configure if dpkg is not present in > $PATH This should not be suppressed, I've on my TODO supporting bootstrapping dpkg on new architectures, though. > 2) dpkg2.diff > This is a workaround for old shells, such as /bin/sh from HP-UX 10.20 and > ksh from the same system. Double quotes are not needed around reversed > single quotes, but they can prevent $target_cpu from expansion on some old > shells. This didn't apply anymore, but I've fixed some instances of this problem in the code. Fixed in git and will be included in next release. > 3) dpkg3.diff > #include is necessary, because dpkg/enquiry.c uses ptrdiff_t > which is defined there. It may be included from other files on other OS'es > but not on HP-UX. Anyway, either stddef.h is included, directly or > indirectly, or gcc reports an error. And this is not needed anymore, stddef.h is now included from dpkg.h. > Unfortunately, above patches are not sufficient to compile dpkg on HP-UX. I > simply don't have enough time to fix everything. If you or anyone else happen to port it to other Unix system, feel free to provide patches. > By the way, it would be a good idea to provide a script which generates all > necessary scripts. I mean something like following: > > #!/bin/sh > aclocal -I automake > libtoolize --automake --copy --force > gettextize --copy --force > autoheader > automake --add-missing > autoconf > This can be replaced now by «autoreconf -f -i». thanks, guillem
Processed: Re: Bug#24514: 3 diff's to compile dpkg-1.4.0.24 on HP-UX
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > tag 24514 pending Bug#24514: [ARCH] 3 diff's to compile dpkg-1.4.0.24 on HP-UX There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#441958: marked as done (locales: 'EOF on stdin at conffile prompt' on noninteractive update)
Your message dated Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:58:54 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#441958: locales: 'EOF on stdin at conffile prompt' on noninteractive update has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: locales Version: 2.6.1-3 Severity: normal the following code snippet >>> # one of dialog|noninteractive|readline| export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive # one of low|medium|high|critical export DEBIAN_PRIORITY=high [...] apt-get -fuy upgrade || errcnt="$?" <<< lead to the following error message: Setting up locales (2.6.1-3) ... Configuration file `/etc/locale.alias' ==> File on system created by you or by a script. ==> File also in package provided by package maintainer. What would you like to do about it ? Your options are: Y or I : install the package maintainer's version N or O : keep your currently-installed version D : show the differences between the versions Z : background this process to examine the situation The default action is to keep your current version. *** locale.alias (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? dpkg: error processing locales (--configure): EOF on stdin at conffile prompt Setting up aspell-de (20070829-3) ... -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers unstable APT policy: (990, 'unstable'), (500, 'testing-proposed-updates'), (500, 'testing') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22.6-tkn-piv-2 (SMP w/2 CPU cores) Locale: LANG=C, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages locales depends on: ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.14 Debian configuration management sy ii libc6 [glibc-2.6-1] 2.6.1-3GNU C Library: Shared libraries locales recommends no packages. -- debconf information: * locales/default_environment_locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED] * locales/locales_to_be_generated: de_DE.UTF-8 UTF-8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ISO-8859-15, en_US ISO-8859-1, [EMAIL PROTECTED] UTF-8, en_GB ISO-8859-1, en_GB.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15, en_GB.UTF-8 UTF-8, en_IE ISO-8859-1, en_IE.UTF-8 UTF-8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] UTF-8, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ISO-8859-15, en_US.ISO-8859-15 ISO-8859-15, en_US.UTF-8 UTF-8 --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, On Wed, 2007-09-12 at 21:11:06 +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > reassign 441958 dpkg > thanks > > Michael Eyrich a écrit : > > On Wednesday 12 September 2007, you wrote: > >> Michael Eyrich a écrit : > >>> Package: locales > >>> Version: 2.6.1-3 > >>> Severity: normal > >>> the following code snippet > >>> > >>> # one of dialog|noninteractive|readline| > >>> export DEBIAN_FRONTEND=noninteractive > >>> > >>> # one of low|medium|high|critical > >>> export DEBIAN_PRIORITY=high > >>> > >>> [...] > >>> > >>> apt-get -fuy upgrade || errcnt="$?" > >>> > >>> <<< > >>> > >>> lead to the following error message: > >>> > >>> > >>> Setting up locales (2.6.1-3) ... > >>> > >>> Configuration file `/etc/locale.alias' > >>> ==> File on system created by you or by a script. > >>> ==> File also in package provided by package > >>> maintainer. What would you like to do about it ? Your > >>> options are: Y or I : install the package maintainer's > >>> version N or O : keep your currently-installed version > >>> D : show the differences between the versions Z > >>> : background this process to examine the situation The > >>> default action is to keep your current version. *** > >>> locale.alias (Y/I/N/O/D/Z) [default=N] ? dpkg: error > >>> processing locales (--configure): EOF on stdin at > >>> conffile prompt > >>> Setting up aspell-de (20070829-3) ... > >> Strange error, probably not in locales. Are you upgrading > >> from a script? > > > > yes. it's called from cron.daily. I guess, it shouldn't even > > start asking questions, should it? It tries to get the answer but there's no terminal attached. If you really want to run something like that from cron (which might be dangerous) make sure to use one of the --force-conf* options, check «dpkg --force-help» for more info. Thus closing this report. regards, guillem --- End Message ---
Bug#444341: update-alternatives doesn't describe the generic names
forcemerge 323009 444341 thanks Hi, On Thu, 2007-09-27 at 21:55:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.13.25 > > There seems to me to be a gaping hole in the update-alternatives program > in that there's all this talk about generic names but no mention of what > they actually are, so it is hard to use the program. > The only way it seems to me to find them is to use 'ls /etc/alternatives'. > For now, the man and info pages should at least advise using 'ls > /etc/alternatives'; better still would be to list the generic names in the > man and info pages. The generic names are not predefined, so I don't think that listing them in the man page is a possibility. > In the longer, term a switch to list the generic names would be great. I guess the requested --list-all would accomplish that, so merging the bug reports. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: setting package to dpkg dpkg-dev dselect, tagging 461327
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > package dpkg dpkg-dev dselect Ignoring bugs not assigned to: dselect dpkg-dev dpkg > tags 461327 + pending Bug#461327: important priority too high for dselect Tags were: d-i Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#444341: update-alternatives doesn't describe the generic names
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > forcemerge 323009 444341 Bug#323009: dpkg: update-alternatives: add --list-all Bug#444341: update-alternatives doesn't describe the generic names Bug#273406: [U-A] add --list option to list all alternatives Forcibly Merged 273406 323009 444341. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: setting package to dpkg dpkg-dev dselect, tagging 354999
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > package dpkg dpkg-dev dselect Ignoring bugs not assigned to: dselect dpkg-dev dpkg > tags 354999 + pending Bug#354999: dpkg: s-s-d documentation wrongly implies that --name only is disallowed There were no tags set. Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: forcibly merging 330256 454628
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > forcemerge 330256 454628 Bug#330256: delete obsolescent not-locally-changed conffiles Bug#454628: obsolete conffiles are not deleted on purge Forcibly Merged 330256 454628. > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#227023: marked as done (dpkg-buildpackage: Dose not build sparc32 pkgs by default on sparc64.)
Your message dated Fri, 18 Jan 2008 08:10:45 +0200 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#227023: dpkg-buildpackage: Dose not build sparc32 pkgs by default on sparc64. has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done. This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) --- Begin Message --- Package: dpkg-dev Version: 1.10.18 Severity: normal I was building mplayer on my ultrasparc from a debian repo I use on x86. I used there sourcepkgs, not sparc aware. I found mysellf using 'sparc32 dpkg-buildpackage' alot and I wondered why dpkg-buildpackage didn't know when to use 64 or 32. ppl say to use 32bit for sparc, unless there is need for 64. If there was need for 64 or even a working 64bit build. Then I would expect special care needed to be taken to facilitate this. Also I don't know how libs are to be built on a dual bit system. I would hope that dpkg would build both sets of libs if needed. I posted the results at "http://www.technofoundry.com/~cheako/"; and touched sparc32 in the output dirs where I needed to use it. The full build dirs can also be found there. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable Architecture: sparc Kernel: Linux train 2.6.0-test11 #1 Wed Dec 31 00:10:05 CST 2003 sparc64 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C Versions of packages dpkg-dev depends on: ii binutils 2.14.90.0.7-3 The GNU assembler, linker and bina ii cpio 2.5-1.1 GNU cpio -- a program to manage ar ii make 3.80-4The GNU version of the "make" util ii patch 2.5.9-1 Apply a diff file to an original ii perl [perl5] 5.8.2-2 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction ii perl-modules 5.8.2-2 Core Perl modules. -- no debconf information --- End Message --- --- Begin Message --- Hi, On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 00:05:07 -0600, Mike Mestnik) (The Archmage Forever wrote: > Package: dpkg-dev > Version: 1.10.18 > Severity: normal > > I was building mplayer on my ultrasparc from a debian repo I use on x86. I > used there sourcepkgs, not sparc aware. I found mysellf using 'sparc32 > dpkg-buildpackage' alot and I wondered why dpkg-buildpackage didn't know > when to use 64 or 32. ppl say to use 32bit for sparc, unless there is need > for 64. If there was need for 64 or even a working 64bit build. Then I would > expect special care needed to be taken to facilitate this. > > Also I don't know how libs are to be built on a dual bit system. I would > hope that dpkg would build both sets of libs if needed. This is actually a packaging issue and dpkg will just use the default mode of your toolchain. If one wants to build biarch or multiarch packages the packaging has to take care of that. Thus closing this report. regards, guillem --- End Message ---
Processed: setting package to dpkg dpkg-dev dselect, tagging 392432, tagging 461247
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > # Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.13 > package dpkg dpkg-dev dselect Ignoring bugs not assigned to: dselect dpkg-dev dpkg > tags 392432 + pending Bug#392432: update-alternatives.8.gz: will --test protect me or not yet implemented? There were no tags set. Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised Tags added: pending > tags 461247 + pending Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised Tags were: pending Bug#392432: update-alternatives.8.gz: will --test protect me or not yet implemented? Tags added: pending > End of message, stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Processed: Re: Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > forcemerge 392432 461247 Bug#392432: update-alternatives.8.gz: will --test protect me or not yet implemented? Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised Forcibly Merged 392432 461247. > thanks Stopping processing here. Please contact me if you need assistance. Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised
forcemerge 392432 461247 thanks On Fri, 2008-01-18 at 00:28:34 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Toby Speight wrote: > > Package: dpkg > > Version: 1.14.7 > > Severity: important > > File: /usr/sbin/update-alternatives > > > > /[ update-alternatives --help ] > > | Options: > > | --test don't do anything, just demonstrate. > > \ > > > > But when I tried using --test to check my --remove-all command, I got > > no output, and I discovered that the remove-all had actually been > > performed. Luckily, I had got my command right... > > Confirmed: > $ grep testmode scripts/update-alternatives.pl > my $testmode = 0; > $testmode= 1; > > So it looks like this never got implemented... this was already the case > in dpkg 1.1.4 in 1996 (this is as far as I can go in the history). > > Thus I suggest to simply remove that option altogether from the script > and the manual page. I was about to add 'not yet implemented' in the --help output to sync it with the manpage, but thinking how this could be implemented I've to say I agree we better just remove the option. The whole script depends on the files it has changed/removed/symlinked during the whole execution. So I'll just do that. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised
On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Toby Speight wrote: > Package: dpkg > Version: 1.14.7 > Severity: important > File: /usr/sbin/update-alternatives > > /[ update-alternatives --help ] > | Options: > | --test don't do anything, just demonstrate. > \ > > But when I tried using --test to check my --remove-all command, I got > no output, and I discovered that the remove-all had actually been > performed. Luckily, I had got my command right... Confirmed: $ grep testmode scripts/update-alternatives.pl my $testmode = 0; $testmode= 1; So it looks like this never got implemented... this was already the case in dpkg 1.1.4 in 1996 (this is as far as I can go in the history). Thus I suggest to simply remove that option altogether from the script and the manual page. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Bug#461327: important priority too high for dselect
Package: dselect Version: 1.14.7 Severity: normal Tags: d-i dselect's priority was recently dropped from required to important (#452652), but important is still a much-inflated priority (so is standard -- optional would be ok). dselect is not the kind of core unix tool that policy defines as candidates for important. It made sense for dselect to be required priority when it was widely used to install and upgrade systems (in the early ninties). It made no sense to drop it from required to important now that it does not. I don't expect removal of dselect from important to be contoversial, although someone is sure to pipe up and say "but I use dselect!" :-) Boring statistical justification follows just in case: Rough reading of the nunbers from dselect's popcon graph suggests that fewer than 1 in 10 systems with dselect installed actually regularly use it. Aptitude is used by roughly twice as many systems, as is synaptic, and apt is regularly used by 6/7ths of all systems. Moreover, while the number of popcon submissions has tripled since the release of etch, and the number users of the other package managers has similarly spiked, the number of systems using dselect has remained flat. http://people.debian.org/~igloo/popcon-graphs/index.php?packages=dselect+aptitude+apt+synaptic+kpackage&show_installed=on&show_vote=on&want_legend=on&want_ticks=on&from_date=2007-04-01&to_date=&hlght_date=&date_fmt=%25Y-%25m&beenhere=1 So most people who use dselect already had it installed before etch was released, and the majority of new installs are unnecessarily installing dselect. While we couldn't fix that for etch, due to the dpkg depenency, we can fix it for lenny, and the best time to fix it would be now. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#461247: dpkg: update-alternatives --test doesn't work as advertised
Package: dpkg Version: 1.14.7 Severity: important File: /usr/sbin/update-alternatives /[ update-alternatives --help ] | Options: | --test don't do anything, just demonstrate. \ But when I tried using --test to check my --remove-all command, I got no output, and I discovered that the remove-all had actually been performed. Luckily, I had got my command right... -- System Information: Debian Release: lenny/sid APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (900, 'stable'), (400, 'unstable') Architecture: i386 (i686) Kernel: Linux 2.6.22tms1.0 (SMP w/1 CPU core; PREEMPT) Locale: LANG=en_GB.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_GB.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Versions of packages dpkg depends on: ii coreutils 5.97-5.3 The GNU core utilities ii libc6 2.7-5 GNU C Library: Shared libraries dpkg recommends no packages. -- no debconf information -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#253265: [S-S-D] Please add '--pid' option
Guillem Jover wrote: >> For some purposes it would be useful to be able to give the PID >> to start-stop-daemon directly, using a "--pid=12345" option, >> rather than via a pidfile and "--pidfile=/path/to/file". Of course >> one can use "kill", but then one can't make use of s-s-d's "--retry" >> feature. > > Can you give a bit more information when you would use that option? Hi, When I submitted the request I was working on system initscripts and script for alsa and there were a number of occasions when this feature would have been useful and I solved the problem in another way. Unfortunately I can't remember the specifics now. The situation when the feature is useful is when you have a pid but no pidfile and you want to kill a process politely in just the way that s-s-d does with "--retry". -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#457151: Please reconsider closure of # 457151 -- it affects gfortran transition
Greetings! Just a quick note here -- I'd be most happy to tailor these to the needs of the community. I have an experimental gfortran atlas about ready for upload. Alas, I'll be away from the office for one week -- hope to get to it when I return. Take care, "Kevin B. McCarty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Riku Voipio wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 12:44:21PM -0800, Kevin B. McCarty wrote: > >> 7) If dpkg was reverted not to re-order Build-Depends, I could force > >> refblas3gf to be installed first, satisfying the dependency of lapack3gf > >> on "atlas3gf-base | refblas3gf | libblas.so.3gf" and preventing the > >> attempted installation of non-existent atlas3gf-base. > > > > I think lapack3gf depending directly on atlas3gf-base is the root of the > > problem. I would suggest moving atlas3gf-base dependency to recommends. > > Thus atlas3gf-base will be pulled onto enduser installations but not > > on buildd's (where recommends are not installed). > > I guess this dependency is caused by the shlibs file of refblas3gf being > set to "atlas3gf-base | refblas3gf | libblas.so.3gf". But if someone > installs lapack3-dev, without specifically also requesting ATLAS, IMO it > is most likely that they only want refblas3-dev and refblas3gf to be > installed. (Otherwise the person would only have installed the ATLAS > packages without worrying about the lapack3 packages.) > > Camm, do you think it would be possible to fine-tune the dependencies of > lapack3-dev and lapack3gf so that they ask for refblas3-dev > (respectively, refblas3gf) *before* atlas3-base-dev (respectively, > atlas3gf-base) ? The former is trivial. Since I think the latter comes > from the shlibs file of refblas3gf, I'm not sure how best to implement > it. Maybe use an shlibs.local file in the lapack3 source package? > > So then lapack3-dev would have: > > Depends: refblas3-dev (>= gfortran-transition-version) | atlas3-base-dev > (>= gfortran-transition-version) | libblas-3gf.so > > Obviously, substitute in the relevant version numbers for > "gfortran-transition-version". Also I'm not sure that I got the name of > the virtual package right, but you get the idea. > > Note, the versioning of the dependencies should be added to the > lapack3-dev package in any case, even if they aren't re-ordered; > currently (at least on my machine) pbuilder is pulling in the version of > atlas3-base-dev that hasn't transitioned yet, which is wrong! > > And lapack3gf would have: > > Depends: refblas3gf | atlas3gf-base | libblas.so.3gf > > If this can be done, please consider my objection to the closure of > #457151 to be withdrawn. Camm, is it possible? > > best regards, > > -- > Kevin B. McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > WWW: http://www.starplot.org/ > WWW: http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/ > GPG: public key ID 4F83C751 > > -- Camm Maguire[EMAIL PROTECTED] == "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." -- Baha'u'llah -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#433290: dpkg: /usr/bin/man not found
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > $ dpkg -S /usr/bin/editor > > non-packaged symlink to /etc/alternatives/editor: /usr/bin/editor > > non-packaged symlink to /usr/bin/vim: /etc/alternatives/editor > > non-packaged symlink to /etc/alternatives/vim: /usr/bin/vim > > non-packaged symlink to /usr/bin/vim.full: /etc/alternatives/vim > > vim-full: /usr/bin/vim.full > > I just implemented this. Please find the patch attached. I should add that applying this patch will break dpkg-shlibdeps which parses the output of dpkg -S. So if it's ever applied, dpkg-shlibdeps needs to be fixed at the same time (and a proper Breaks needs to be added to dpkg). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
