Config files which are writable by www-data
Hi all, I am the maintainer of ldap-account-manager and got bug 462192. The problem is that my application provides a set of default templates for user creation. These files must be editable via the application itself and therefore reside in /var/ldap-account-manager. But the files are overwritten on every package installation because they are not treated as config files in Debian's sense. Now I think about moving the files to /etc. But Debian policy sais that files in /etc should be owned by root and writable only by the user. So what can I do? Would it be ok to assign these files to group www-data and allow the group write access? Or would it be better to own them by www-data and not root? Thanks a lot for your help. Best regards Roland signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Il giorno Sat, 9 Feb 2008 12:40:31 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Hello, On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote: I have not yet done the rest of my review so you may want to wait a while before uploading a new version to mentors. Since you are adding quilt, it is probably a good idea to modify/add the Makefile in a quilt patch. Ooops, I must have missed that, sorry. (I usually leave only debian/ into the .diff.gz). Probably it was done by the previous maintainer, and I just didn't notice it. It has been fixed now :) Once you take a decision on this and the name change please upload your file to mentors and I will upload it. Sure, done. I decided to use your suggestion as the version number, with revision number 1 (i.e. 0.99.ds1-2), because it's the first release with the repackaged source. And, IMHO, it's better than the +ds thing. Here you are: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libx86/libx86_0.99.ds1-1.dsc Thanks for reviewing this package. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
David Paleino scrisse: I decided to use your suggestion as the version number, with revision number 1 (i.e. 0.99.ds1-2), because it's the first release with the repackaged source. And, IMHO, it's better than the +ds thing. I'd say that this isn't a great idea. If in the future upstream release a micro revision, eg 0.99.1, you'll be in trouble as 0.99.1 isn't greater than your 0.99.ds1. Please compare these: dpkg --compare-versions 0.99.1 gt 0.99.ds1 echo OK dpkg --compare-versions 0.99.1 gt 0.99+ds1 echo OK Kindly, David Cheers, Luca -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Luca Bruno : :' : The Universal O.S.| lucab (AT) debian.org `. `'` | GPG Key ID: 3BFB9FB3 `- http://www.debian.org | Debian GNU/Linux Developer pgpJGLqfJNeOM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: QA Upload -- quiteinsane
Hi, Barry deFreese wrote: Here is another QA upload. Closes 1 bug and does some package clean-up / standards update. Your changes all look great (it's not quite done building yet, but you will have done that), maybe we can make two more changes, though: And the copyright file is very wrong and needs to be redone. It misses copyright statements and even copyright holders (e.g. Trolltech). On the other hand, in debian/control: . Author: Michael Herder [EMAIL PROTECTED] does not belong in the description. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Il giorno Sat, 9 Feb 2008 10:45:48 +0100 Luca Bruno [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: David Paleino scrisse: I decided to use your suggestion as the version number, with revision number 1 (i.e. 0.99.ds1-2), because it's the first release with the repackaged source. And, IMHO, it's better than the +ds thing. I'd say that this isn't a great idea. If in the future upstream release a micro revision, eg 0.99.1, you'll be in trouble as 0.99.1 isn't greater than your 0.99.ds1. Please compare these: dpkg --compare-versions 0.99.1 gt 0.99.ds1 echo OK dpkg --compare-versions 0.99.1 gt 0.99+ds1 echo OK You're right. Thanks for noticing this :) http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libx86/libx86_0.99+ds1-1.dsc Ciao, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: debian-builder (updated package)
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8 of my package debian-builder. It builds these binary packages: debian-builder - Rebuild Debian packages from source code The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 457027 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/debian-builder - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/debian-builder/debian-builder_1.8.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Deepak Tripathi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: syslog-summary (updated and adopted package)
Il giorno Thu, 7 Feb 2008 10:57:06 +0100 David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.13 of the package syslog-summary, which I'm also adopting (ITA: #455005). Anyone interested in this? :) David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Hello, On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: You're right. Thanks for noticing this :) http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libx86/libx86_0.99+ds1-1.dsc Looks like there is convergence! I'm currently away from my build machine. I'll upload as soon as I get there. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 01:34:53PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: I think that it is a bit frivolous to distribute software with advertisment clause in main and not properly warning the redistributors, I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material. Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will not notice such lists, but that's a different problem... Anyway, I really think that there are good chances to obtain a relicencing, that is by far the best way to find a solution that pleases everybody. This is even better, but it can pontially take a very long time. I believe it has bee requested from OpenSSL people years ago.. -- rm -rf only sounds scary if you don't have backups -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Upload -- quiteinsane
Thomas Viehmann wrote: Barry deFreese wrote: Here is another QA upload. Closes 1 bug and does some package clean-up / standards update. Your changes all look great (it's not quite done building yet, but you will have done that), maybe we can make two more changes, though: [...] Thanks for adding these. Uploaded. Kind regards T. -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: dictconv (5th try)
Hi, asking again for a sponsorfor dictconv. No one interested? I think it's a very useful tool... Package name: dictconv Version : 0.2-4 Upstream Author : Raul Fernandes [EMAIL PROTECTED] URL : http://ktranslator.sourceforge.net/ License : GPL Section : utils It builds these binary packages: dictconv - convert a dictionary file type in another dictionary file type The package appears to be lintian clean. The upload would fix these bugs: 435814 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dictconv - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dictconv/dictconv_0.2-4.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards Francesco Namuri -- Francesco Namuri francesco(at)namuri(dot)it http://namuri.it/ id gpg key: 21A4702A [EMAIL PROTECTED] signature.asc Description: Questa è una parte del messaggio firmata digitalmente
RFS: QA Upload -- quiteinsanegimpplugin
Hi folks, Since I did quiteinsane I figured it was only right to fix up quiteinsanegimplugin. Fixes 1 bug and some package clean-up / standards updates. Including fixing up similar debian/copyright issues to quiteinsane. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/q/quiteinsanegimpplugin/quiteinsanegimpplugin_0.3-9.dsc Thank you, Barry deFreese -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[uploaded] RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Hello, On Wed, 06 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 0.99-2+ds1 of the package libx86, which I want to adopt. On Sat, 09 Feb 2008, David Paleino wrote: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/l/libx86/libx86_0.99+ds1-1.dsc Uploaded. Thanks for your work on this package. Please check http://buildd.debian.org/libx86 for further information on the results of buildd's. Regards, Kapil. -- signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [uploaded] RFS: libx86 (adopted package)
Il giorno Sat, 9 Feb 2008 22:45:23 +0530 Kapil Hari Paranjape [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Uploaded. Thanks for your work on this package. Thank you for reviewing and uploading it. Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Copyright question (BSD with advertisement clause)
Riku Voipio wrote: I think the short term solution to this dilemma is to compile a list of attributions needed to be included in advertizment material. Also a list should be compiled attributions needed n documentation (such as libjpeg's). Obviously most distributors/boob writers will not notice such lists, but that's a different problem... Most writers don't have to worry about it, it's not as if we advertise Debian as Debian.. now with Thomas G. Lane's JPEG support and OpenSSL. The advertisement clause tries to not allow those specific attributions to be used in advertisements; it does NOT require that advertisements contain any specific list of citations. -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: RFS: debian-builder (updated package)
On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530 Deepak Tripathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8 of my package debian-builder. It builds these binary packages: debian-builder - Rebuild Debian packages from source code Why is this worth having in Debian? (What's wrong with apt-get -b or the half-dozen other ways of building a source package?) How many more (vanity) build systems must we have -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpboyV2RHIPs.pgp Description: PGP signature
RFS: xpn
Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xpn. * Package name: xpn Version : 1.0.0-1 Upstream Author : Antonio Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://xpn.altervista.org/index_en.html * License : GPL-2+ Section : news It builds these binary packages: xpn- graphical newsreader written in Python and GTK+ toolkit With XPN you can read/write articles on the Usenet with a good MIME support. XPN can operate with all the most widespread charsets, starting from US-ASCII to UTF-8. When you edit an article XPN automatically chooses the best charset, however is always possible to override this choice. . There also other useful features like scoring, filtered views, random tag-lines, external editor support, one-key navigation, ROT13, spoiler char, ... The package is lintian clean. The upload would fix ITP #439107 The package can be found on mentors.debian.net: - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpn - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable main contrib non-free - dget http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/x/xpn/xpn_1.0.0-1.dsc I would be glad if someone uploaded this package for me. Kind regards David Paleino -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xpn
Hi David, * David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-09 19:46]: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package xpn. * Package name: xpn Version : 1.0.0-1 Upstream Author : Antonio Caputo [EMAIL PROTECTED] * URL : http://xpn.altervista.org/index_en.html [...] The upstream homepage results in a 404, please adjust that. Cheers Nico -- Nico Golde - http://ngolde.de - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - GPG: 0x73647CFF For security reasons, all text in this mail is double-rot13 encrypted. http://people.debian.org/~nion/sponsoring-checklist.html pgpNBujSmvAow.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: dictconv (5th try)
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 20:04:59 +0100 David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) debian/changelog should list only official releases. You're already at -4, without even a single official upload to the repositories :). Shrink all the info to Initial release (Closes: #foo), as you've never uploaded it. Francesco is following my recommendation: http://people.debian.org/~codehelp/#increment 3) are the files listed in debian/docs really necessary/useful? I found useful just the README: IMHO you could safely remove debian/docs and pass README directly to dh_installdocs (this would be with debhelper, I don't really like cdbs). There are sponsors who *do* like CDBS. In the case of the README, CDBS adds this automatically (if it exists). The listing in debian/docs does no harm. Francesco - I notice this is the 5th try for this package. I don't remember seeing a long description, maybe that would help? -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ pgpv27bXRssTJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: dictconv (5th try)
Il giorno Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:31:11 +0100 Francesco Namuri [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Hi, Hi Francesco (piacere, David :), ... IANADD, but I have some suggestions for your package: 1) why is it Priority: extra? Put it Priority: optional, if there is no specific reason to put it as extra; 2) debian/changelog should list only official releases. You're already at -4, without even a single official upload to the repositories :). Shrink all the info to Initial release (Closes: #foo), as you've never uploaded it. 3) are the files listed in debian/docs really necessary/useful? I found useful just the README: IMHO you could safely remove debian/docs and pass README directly to dh_installdocs (this would be with debhelper, I don't really like cdbs). HTH, David (e salutami Giuseppe ;) -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: RFS: xpn
Il giorno Sat, 9 Feb 2008 19:53:10 +0100 Nico Golde [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha scritto: Hi David, Hi Nico, * David Paleino [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-02-09 19:46]: * URL : http://xpn.altervista.org/index_en.html The upstream homepage results in a 404, please adjust that. It's index-en.html, not index_en.html. I wrote that by hand (sorry for not cutpasting) :) http://xpn.altervista.org/index-en.html Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 | http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
RFS: QA Upload -- ksocrat
Hi, While working on removing libqt3-compat-headers, I ran across this orhpaned package as well so here is one to fix this issue as well as standards update, etc, etc. If someone has time to review/upload, I would appreciate it. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/k/ksocrat/ksocrat_3.2.1-2.dsc Thank you, Barry deFreese -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: debian-builder (updated package)
On Feb 9, 2008 11:58 PM, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530 Deepak Tripathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8 of my package debian-builder. It builds these binary packages: debian-builder - Rebuild Debian packages from source code Why is this worth having in Debian? (What's wrong with apt-get -b or the half-dozen other ways of building a source package?) Hi , Nothing is wrong with apt-get -b BUT It is not designed to enhance your installation by producing optimized binaries, however this may be achieved with the aid of companion packages such as 'pentium-builder' or 'athlon-builder'. The prime purpose of this package is to ease the testing of compiler patches such as the Stack Smashing Protection patch available from IBM. How many more (vanity) build systems must we have there are many and besically it depends how the community uses them,. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ -- Deepak Tripathi E3 71V3 8Y C063 (We Live By Code) http://deepkatripathi.blogspot.com
Re: Config files which are writable by www-data
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 10:09:13AM +0100, Roland Gruber wrote: The problem is that my application provides a set of default templates for user creation. These files must be editable via the application itself and therefore reside in /var/ldap-account-manager. I most sincerely hope they do not. But the files are overwritten on every package installation because they are not treated as config files in Debian's sense. Well, don't do that, then. Ship the template files somewhere else, and then copy them into /var if they're not already there. Now I think about moving the files to /etc. But Debian policy sais that files in /etc should be owned by root and writable only by the user. So what can I do? Would it be ok to assign these files to group www-data and allow the group write access? Or would it be better to own them by www-data and not root? There are already some files in /etc that are writable by www-data, so that's a possibility too. It comes down to direct admin editability -- is it expected that sysadmins may want to futz around with these template files using a text editor, or is the only sensible way of dealing with these files through the application? If the former, /etc. If the latter, /var. - Matt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: debian-builder (updated package)
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 02:35 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote: On Feb 9, 2008 11:58 PM, Neil Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530 Deepak Tripathi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8 of my package debian-builder. It builds these binary packages: debian-builder - Rebuild Debian packages from source code Why is this worth having in Debian? (What's wrong with apt-get -b or the half-dozen other ways of building a source package?) Hi , Nothing is wrong with apt-get -b BUT It is not designed to enhance your installation by producing optimized binaries, however this may be achieved with the aid of companion packages such as 'pentium-builder' or 'athlon-builder'. The prime purpose of this package is to ease the testing of compiler patches such as the Stack Smashing Protection patch available from IBM. Please post the long description - this sounds like a very specialised package that should indicate this in the description if not in the package name. debian-builder appears to be far too generic - there would be no reason to rebuild more than a few packages with such a tool IMHO. How many more (vanity) build systems must we have there are many and besically it depends how the community uses them,. No, it is how many Debian should support. There is a great deal of controversy about build systems right now and you have not yet given any convincing evidence of why this one should be added. The problem with all build systems is that they start out as useful for a few problems but soon they are adopted for packages outside that remit which then depend on them and from which maintainers do not want to move. What is the role for this package with regard to packages to be uploaded to Debian? What differences does your build system introduce that would cause the binaries to differ from those inspected by the security team? Why not simply use quilt or some other patch system and an existing build tool - script it in shell if necessary. Are you aware of the issues with introducing a new build tool? What are your answers for the problems currently being discussed in Debian around such build tools, patch systems and source package changes with regard to your package? A build tool is not an ordinary package. You need to work a lot harder (now and forever more) to show that you can maintain this package in the round and improve it to meet future changes as-yet-unknown. I'd be surprised if this is achievable without being part of the upstream team for this package. -- Neil Williams = http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: RFS: QA Upload -- ksocrat
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 03:48:56PM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: While working on removing libqt3-compat-headers, I ran across this orhpaned package as well so here is one to fix this issue as well as standards update, etc, etc. If someone has time to review/upload, I would appreciate it. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/contrib/k/ksocrat/ksocrat_3.2.1-2.dsc Uploaded Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFS: QA Upload -- vipec
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 12:33:33AM -0500, Barry deFreese wrote: Here is another QA upload. Fixes two bugs and standards updates if someone has time to review/upload. http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/v/vipec/vipec_3.2.0-5.dsc Uploaded Gruesse, -- Frank Lichtenheld [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.djpig.de/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: pydance
I am looking for a sponsor so I can adopt the package pydance. It is a dancing simulator, much like the ones in the arcades, such as Dance Dance Revolution. It is programmed in python. It is published under the GNU General Public License v2. Upstream has not released anything in quite some time. The ITA is here: http://bugs.debian.org/388361 Upstream is here: http://www.icculus.org/pyddr/ I have already created a package which I believe is fit to be put into unstable. It fixes a few minor bugs, such as setting the standards version, and making myself the maintainer, as well as one bigger bug which caused pydance to crash when loading certain files. The dsc, source, and diff are here: http://wntrknit.freeshell.org/pydance_1.0.3-5.dsc http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/pydance/pydance_1.0.3.orig.tar.gz http://wntrknit.freeshell.org/pydance_1.0.3-5.diff.gz -Brandon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
