On Tue, 2016-05-24 at 11:43 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2016, at 10:01, Simon McVittie wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 24 May 2016 at 09:08:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Whatever we do, we absolutely must bring up a fully configured
> > >
On May 22, "Iain R. Learmonth" wrote:
> What is the upstream source for the /etc/services file? Do we just
I am...
> maintain that in Debian or are updates incorporated from IANA and
> unofficial port numbers?
I do not use the official IANA list because it is huge and full of
Hi,
On 22/05/16 10:00, Niko Tyni wrote:
> Well, getservbyname(3) is used by 945 packages according to
> codesearch.debian.net, and getprotobyname(3) by 551 packages.
> Those use /etc/services and /etc/protocols by default AFAIK.
> Doesn't seem that seldom to me?
I'm probably doing it wrong, but
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 11:38:27AM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> Hm, I did not expect that, but according to codesearch.debian.net you
> are right. I'm actually stunned by the amount of programs that do
> something like:
>
> struct protoent *pe = getprotobyname("TCP");
> int s =
On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 12:00:37PM +0300, Niko Tyni wrote:
> > About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
> > contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
> > purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it
> >
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 10:01:05PM +0200, Guus Sliepen wrote:
> About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
> contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
> purged netbase, and it doesn't really break anything. I wouldn't call it
> "necessary
On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 09:08:29PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
I don't see a reason either.
About the description of the netbase package though: it currently only
contains for text files in /etc that are seldomly used. For fun I just
Am 20.05.2016 um 21:08 schrieb Marco d'Itri:
> Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
I seems to have been a Depends in the past and was demoted to Recommends
quite a while ago. Why it was added in the first place I can't seem to
find in the debian changelog.
Personally I don't
Does anybody see a reason to NOT remove the recommends?
On May 20, Ansgar Burchardt wrote:
> netbase should not recommend ifupdown. Currently any package
> depending on netbase will install ifupdown and a dhcp client if
> recommends are installed, see [1].
>
> As ifupdown
Package: netbase
Version: 5.3
Severity: normal
netbase should not recommend ifupdown. Currently any package
depending on netbase will install ifupdown and a dhcp client if
recommends are installed, see [1].
As ifupdown is currently Priority: important (same as netbase), it
will be installed in
10 matches
Mail list logo