Georges Roux (2003-04-28 00:29:37 +0200) :
Suivant la procedure decrite dans le guide du nouveau mainteneur, y
a t'il quelqu'un pour me signer ma cle gpg?
Bin, vu qu'en général on ne signe pas la clef des gens qu'on n'a
jamais vus, il est préférable, pour organiser une rencontre, que tu
This one time, at band camp, Blars Blarson wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I won't debate whether this is true in general, bug it is certainly
unnecessary in the case of pump. I have specifically added code to
deal with the inability to write to /var/run by making
This one time, at band camp, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 07, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duh. Did you miss the part where people were talking about *amending the
FHS because the FHS is flawed*?
Yes: I did not agree with them.
And looks like I was right, because as I showed nearly
This one time, at band camp, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 07, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* pam, shadow
Allow either /etc/nologin or /run/nologin to prevent non-root logins
Use a symlink.
* util-linux
Use /run/mtab for mount's statefile
Use a symlink.
A symlink
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Hood wrote:
On Sat, 2003-04-12 at 10:12, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 14:17, Thomas Hood wrote:
* ppp
* Change /usr/sbin/pppd to:
* Store PID in /run/, not in /var/run/
Why? Is the goal to make PPP-mounter /var to work?!
I
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Hood wrote:
(Re: /etc/nologin)
A dangling symlink should be considered like a missing file.
Yes, that would work. However, having separate /etc/nologin
and /run/nologin looks like a useful feature, as I mentioned
earlier.
For clarification, (and this is
This one time, at band camp, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 14:17, Thomas Hood wrote:
The proposed new directory is for files similar to those in /var/run/
that are not just variable and unshareable but also local -- i.e., they
must be writable independently of network
On 20030427T201013-0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
I had toyed with the idea of rewriting grep-dctrl using sgrep macros. I
haven't tried it, but I think it may be powerful enough. Did you look into
this possibility?
No, I didn't. You are of course welcome to try, but I am not very
interested in
On 20030427T170110-0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
I even used my own user account on the system and it doesn't have
permissions to write a cvs lockfile. Got a tarball? :(
http://people.debian.org/~ajk/dctrl-tools_rewrite_snapshot_01.tar.gz
This is the same set of files as in CVS tag
Joachim Breitner wrote:
Hi,
obviously debian sid is from now on capable of supporting several init
script schemes. Now I wonder if it is now possible to package R. Goochs
simpleinit [1]. But I have some questions:
Just for your information, a Debian user can choose between two
concurrent
Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
* Glenn Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2003-04-23 03:30]:
If someone missed a meeting because a program they installed out of
Debian had a time bomb in it, they would be justified in questioning
their use of Debian, not just the application.
No. They would be
Im preparing a package of GNUnet (#147380), one of its current problems
is that it generates a heap of lintian rpath warnings, e.g.
W: gnunet-gtk: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath ./usr/bin/gnunet-gtk
/home/bug1/0.5.3/gnunet-0.5.3/debian/tmp/usr/lib
./configure and the Makefile.in's mention
At Sat, 26 Apr 2003 03:01:58 +0200,
Arnd Bergmann wrote:
On Friday 25 April 2003 19:36, Josselin Mouette wrote:
You know this will probably require modifications in *thousands* of
packages ?
Yes, I fully understand the impact. I've done it for half the packages
in something similar to
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Hood wrote:
* base-files
Add /run/ directory
#191036: create /run for programs that run before /var is mounted
* pam, shadow
Allow either /etc/nologin or /run/nologin to prevent nonroot login
#191037: Allow both /etc/nologin and /run/nologin
Roland Mas wrote:
To me, you seem to express the view that improving Debian means
throwing away our release process, including the way testing works.
Then I have expressed myself unclearly. My apologies. I think testing is a
great idea and a most necessary institution. In fact, I wish we had
This one time, at band camp, Sam Hartman wrote:
Until you get general consensus on a specific goal, I'm unlikely to
accept such changes if they are submitted to me. As a maintainer I
want to be able to look at some statement and answer the following
questions:
Hi Sam,
I've just filed the bug
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
That is right! The core of the matter is not whether
filesystems need to be mounted over the network or not,
but whether the parts of the filesystem you are attempting
to write to are on the root filesystem or not.
The essence of /run/ had better not include that it be
This one time, at band camp, Marco d'Itri wrote:
/etc has a static nature. See the note on /etc/mtab under Table
3.7.3.1. It is also for configuration files. /etc/adjtime is neither.
Then propose to change FHS.
Welcome to the discussion.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Many have chroots but don't tend to have the relevant build-deps
installed.
You can always send a mail into the direction of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
and ask for the packages which are missing. You don't have to, but it's
a common way to get things installed.
Regards,
Guido Guenther wrote:
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 09:05:50PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
I agree, the vast majority of our users can afford newer machines. So, I
think we should drop m68k, mips and other similar unfashionable old
archs, don't you think? The majority of our users will be happy...
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:
After all, it's sarge that's the release candidate right? Not sid. So why is
sid allowed to dictate dependencies that sarge must conform to?
I think it's because sid is meant to be sarge+2 weeks, if all goes according
to plan...
Kill
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 04:32:37PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
This is an attempt to summarize some points.
1. Why do we have a problem, other than performance issues?
* To maintain binary compatibility with other distributions for C++
packages, Debian needs to use the i486+ version of
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:59:20AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
On Sun, Apr 27, 2003 at 03:52:13PM +0300, Jarno Elonen wrote:
There might be things to think about though: some packages have lots
of conffiles, and that could mean some extra disk space, which not
everyone will want to spend.
The dates for LCA2004 in Adelaide (South Australia) have now been
finalised, and the Amazing Touring Debian Miniconf Orchestra And Review
is about to get underway all over again.
There's much more to follow, but preliminary info is online at
www.debconf.org/miniconf3/
As with previous events,
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 00:01, Sam Hartman wrote:
1) Why are people mounting root read-only?
Frank (Not his real name) has a machine with a local
read-only boot medium and a network connection but no local
hard disk.
Jane finds it nice that her /etc/ hierarchy changes only
when she administers
Matthew Palmer wrote:
Perhaps one reason is that fixing enough bugs to get stuff into testing is
currently a whack-a-mole job?
I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
that new version of A probably requires all sorts of new crap from B
anyway...
Does it,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 26 April 2003 16:38, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Is it possible to fix this (ie, provide ABI compatible versions for
i386 and i486) without breaking stuff? 386s are faster than many other
pieces of hardware that we still support, so
This one time, at band camp, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Apr 07, Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(I forgot to mention) J.W.'s patch does more than what a mere symlink
would do. By making programs sensitive both to /run/nologin and
/etc/nologin, it becomes possible for the administrator to
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Hood wrote:
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
That is right! The core of the matter is not whether
filesystems need to be mounted over the network or not,
but whether the parts of the filesystem you are attempting
to write to are on the root filesystem or not.
The
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-28
Severity: wishlist
Package name: dirvish
Version : 1.1rc1
Upstream Author : J.W. Schultz of Pegasystems Technologies jw at pegasys.ws
URL : http://www.pegasys.ws/dirvish/
License : GPL
Description
Hello.
The size of Debian increases, and the Sections: system has proven unable to
scale to keep pace with it. There has been much consensus around a multiple
tags per package solution, and now, yes, it has become a reality.
As the first step for proposing its introduction, we have realized a
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-28
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: cal3d
Version : 0.8
Upstream Author : Bruno 'Beosil' Heidelberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://cal3d.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL
Description : Skeletal
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 08:36:20AM +0300, Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho wrote:
There are also a number of other implementation mechanisms I didn't
seriously consider (such as using Perl or Python, or making grep-dctrl a
wrapper for ara:-). I take pleasure in writing this code (in addition
to
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:55:22PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello.
The size of Debian increases, and the Sections: system has proven unable to
scale to keep pace with it. There has been much consensus around a multiple
tags per package solution, and now, yes, it has become a reality.
(...)
Hi,
I don't know if I got it wrong, but AFAIK runlevels work this way in
Gooch's simpleinit:
A runlevel is just any script whose name makes it being called by
/sbin/init on a certain runlevel, like
/etc/init.d/runlevel.3
There is nothing special about this script, it could do anything
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 09:32:01 +0200
MS == Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MS
MS Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Many have chroots but don't tend to have the relevant build-deps
installed.
MS
MS You can always send a mail into the direction of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MS and ask for the packages which
On 20030428T093754-0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
As long as you take pleasure in continuing to maintain it in the future. ;-)
I intend to :-) One of the reasons for this rewrite is to take care of
the bit rot in the old sources (which was, thanks to the feature creep,
quite considerable
Wow!!
I only wanted to thank you for this great job (and also for seeing how
this could be used for projects like Metadistros)
Really impressive :D
--
Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
pgpN4OegFi0mR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 07:18:20PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
I just updated my packagebrowser to a completely rewritten version.
I finally got around to looking at this, and it is very cool! I have one
suggestion for the CGI, which is to add the ability to query for packages by
maintainer.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
I am really not trying to replace the sysvinit scheme as a default one,
and I don't think anybody else is. But having the option to use a
different one is a goal worth going for.
You might be interested in the runit and
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:50:15PM +1000, Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Thomas Hood wrote:
Jamie Wilkinson wrote:
That is right! The core of the matter is not whether
filesystems need to be mounted over the network or not,
but whether the parts of the filesystem you
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 05:03, Björn Stenberg wrote:
Matthew Palmer wrote:
I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
that new version of A probably requires all sorts of new crap from B
anyway...
Does it, really? Or does it simply have binary dependencies to
Sorry to reopen this at such a late date, but I'm way behind on -devel.
Hi, I'm Karl and I maintain login and passwd.
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* pam, shadow
Allow either /etc/nologin or /run/nologin to prevent non-root logins
I don't like the idea of having multiple files
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 07:55, Enrico Zini wrote:
Hello.
The size of Debian increases, and the Sections: system has proven unable to
scale to keep pace with it. There has been much consensus around a multiple
tags per package solution, and now, yes, it has become a reality.
Wow, this looks
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Further, I'd like to add a new tag to the vocabulary for use with Debian
Desktop; this tag would reflect the overall specialization of the
package. A lot of packages in Debian are highly specialized,
interesting only to a
-snip-
* SSL
-snip-
This is likely illegal if it is truely one binary and doesn't do the
kpart abstraction stuff... I really wish openssl would just vanish
someday.
Time to start converting the world to gnu TLS, it seems...
Yep, as far as I know the only things
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
A runlevel is just any script whose name makes it being called by
/sbin/init on a certain runlevel, like
/etc/init.d/runlevel.3
There is nothing special about this script, it could do anything you
want. Usually I think
On 28-Apr-03, 12:51 (CDT), David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would hope that rather than such generic terms, one could specify more
specific tags for highly specialized packages and have these tags imply a
certain degree of specialization. So this way a user interested in a
specific
Hi David,
On an unrelated tangent, let me say: darcs is cool :)
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 13:51, David Roundy wrote:
I would hope that rather than such generic terms, one could specify more
specific tags for highly specialized packages and have these tags imply a
certain degree of
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Wow, this looks very cool! Great work.
Thanks! To you and all the other wonderful people who wrote with great
feedback and enthousiasm: it's been an exciting day after the announce
for me!
1) In general what work do you see
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 01:51:51PM -0400, David Roundy wrote:
I would hope that rather than such generic terms, one could specify more
specific tags for highly specialized packages and have these tags imply a
certain degree of specialization. So this way a user interested in a
specific
Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Right. Any reason why the patch below should not work?
Yes, plenty.
When __exchange_and_add is an extern function, the implementation
does not matter to applications using it. Binaries optimized for
i486 or higher can still use the inline function
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 22:00, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So should the standard binaries (apt, groff, OpenGL libraries, kde
libraries) be compiled for 386 or 486?
If 486, how can you run the packages on 386?
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 03:35:17PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Hi David,
On an unrelated tangent, let me say: darcs is cool :)
Thanks! :)
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 13:51, David Roundy wrote:
I would hope that rather than such generic terms, one could specify
more specific tags for highly
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
2) Do you forsee tags being maintained outside of the packages in the
future? For developing the tag system this makes sense, but it seems to
me that maintainers should have more direct control over this somehow.
I think that the
Hi,
A few days ago I've uploaded new experimental version of yada. This is
alternative way of building packages which doesn't use debhelper and
doesn't require editing of Makefile.
The last release introduces macro preprocessor and 'build-indep'
make target.
Have a good fun,
--
Piotr
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't like the idea of having multiple files to turn off logins. (I
can't log into my system, and /etc/nologin doesn't exist! What? didn't you
know about this *other* file?) I also don't want to solve this with a
symlink.
Yes, let's
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 09:38:31PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
2) Do you forsee tags being maintained outside of the packages in the
future? For developing the tag system this makes sense, but it seems to
me that maintainers
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-25
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: litmus
Version : 0.9.2
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.webdav.org/neon/litmus/
* License : GPL
Description : WebDAV server protocol
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-25
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libhttp-davserver-perl
Version : 0.2
Upstream Author : Jay J. Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://www.cpan.org/modules/by-module/HTTP/
* License : as Perl itself
Jamie == Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jamie This one time, at band camp, Sam Hartman wrote:
Until you get general consensus on a specific goal, I'm
unlikely to accept such changes if they are submitted to me.
As a maintainer I want to be able to look at some
Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They have to be compiled for i386, as they have always been.
If they were compiled for i486, they would not run on i386
anyway, with or without the bug.
But if they are compiled for i386, they won't run on other Linux
systems, thus losing binary
OK, I think my worst fears are realized. You do actually want to
solve all the goals I could have imagined you possibly wanting to try
try and solve.
I think I am very likely to wait until there is a policy change or at
least text that would be good guidelines as a policy change before
This one time, at band camp, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think a great tag to have (but perhaps cumbersome to add to so many
packages) would be a set of keybindings tags, which would try to indicate
the default keybindings (since that is what a novice is going to see).
IMHO, this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 28 April 2003 23:54, Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They have to be compiled for i386, as they have always been.
If they were compiled for i486, they would not run on i386
anyway, with or without the
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:54:37PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
Jamie == Jamie Wilkinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Jamie This one time, at band camp, Sam Hartman wrote:
Until you get general consensus on a specific goal, I'm
unlikely to accept such changes if they are
At 11:36 28/04/2003 +0200, you wrote:
We should still discuss an i686 (or i586) optimized port, but fixing
the problem will make it possible to seperate the issues.
Indeed! This is (suppossed to be)? just a first step, in order to solve the
ABI compatibility issue with libstdc++5
An i586/i686
Hi,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:20:54PM -0400, Morgon Kanter wrote:
This one time, at band camp, David Roundy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe novices should only be shown gui
programs after all. They probably don't want to be using a shell
anyways...
I don't really think this would be
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 17:47, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 12:30:54PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
2) Do you forsee tags being maintained outside of the packages in the
future? For developing the tag system this makes sense, but it seems to
me that maintainers should have
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 15:38, Enrico Zini wrote:
That may probably be all the necessary adoption we need for having tags
in debian, however there will probably be issues: what about CD
installations where no network is available? How do they access the
tags database?
The tags database
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003, [iso-8859-1] Björn Stenberg wrote:
Perhaps one reason is that fixing enough bugs to get stuff into testing is
currently a whack-a-mole job?
I don't think your proposals will really fix that, since in my experience
that new version of A probably requires all sorts
Hello.
Recently I was reported [1] by Marco d'Itri that FVWM from stable
branch (2.4.x) does not work with GNOME2, so he requested 2.5.x
packages from me.
Olivier Chapuis clarified the situation in his reply [2] to my
question in fvwm-workers mailing list.
FVWM packages are ready and apt'able
On Sat, Apr 26, 2003 at 11:12:00AM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
It seems that currently apt is not able to replace an essential
package. Well in fact the package I am trying to replace isn't
even really essential...
It is able to, as you demonstrated, it just make it harder than
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-04-29
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: oooqs-kde
Version : 1.0_rc3 [1]
Upstream Author : Christian Nitschkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL : http://segfaultskde.berlios.de/index.php?content=oooqs
* License : GPL
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 06:09:10PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
OK, I think my worst fears are realized. You do actually want to
solve all the goals I could have imagined you possibly wanting to try
try and solve.
I think I am very likely to wait until there is a policy change or at
least
Hello,
Of course we always intended to have Tags: lines added to package
description files. But to actually get the system working we needed data
and application prototypes. Guess we've got part of that now. ;)
On the long run:
- packages should include the tags in their control file
(so
Erich Schubert wrote:
Of course we always intended to have Tags: lines added to package
description files. But to actually get the system working we needed data
and application prototypes. Guess we've got part of that now. ;)
On the long run:
- packages should include the tags in their
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 11:35:58PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
On Mon, 2003-04-28 at 18:30, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would also be nice to have some blessing of /run in the policy first,
but that doesn't seem terribly likely.
What is more important for now is whether there is broad enough
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 03:19:57AM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
- policy should require that tags are added
This is going to be problematic. I think it would be better to have an
override system where missing tags can be added by a central authority,
rather than trying to force all maintainers
On Mon, 28 Apr 2003 17:06:14 -0400, David Roundy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
probably wouldn't hid mp3blaster. Maybe novices should only be
shown gui programs after all. They probably don't want to be using
a shell anyways...
I would object to such a major disservice to people just
Hi,
I just did apt-get update; apt-get upgrade for SID and am getting
all sorts of errors. I upgraded about a week ago with any problems.
Here's an example from the emacs21 package:
Preparing to replace emacs21 21.2-6 (using .../emacs21_21.3-1_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement emacs21 ...
On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 07:55:42PM -0700, curt brune wrote:
I just did apt-get update; apt-get upgrade for SID and am getting
all sorts of errors. I upgraded about a week ago with any problems.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=libstdc%2B%2B5
--
- mdz
This one time, at band camp, Steve Langasek wrote:
Shell pseudocode was posted to this thread (a month ago?) that showed
how the init scripts could handle the requirement that /run be mounted
early, even if it's not on the root fs. The init scripts already
include special handling of /proc and /,
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry to reopen this at such a late date, but I'm way behind on -devel.
Hi, I'm Karl and I maintain login and passwd.
Thomas Hood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
* pam, shadow
Allow either /etc/nologin or /run/nologin to prevent non-root
This one time, at band camp, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
... and those who have tried to explain why it's a bad idea or have
concerns have been brushed off. So I've given up for now trying to
explain to you folks why I'm not convinced, since I don't have time to
go pig mud-wrestling, but please don't
85 matches
Mail list logo
