On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:44, Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> > >> Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >> >If that happens for a too
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:51:45 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 21:45]:
>> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:02:16 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 15:43]:
>> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:40:33 +0
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 07:59:43PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > AFAI can tell, anybody can host an archive of packages built from stable
> > sources for a scc or unofficial port. And - if I read the conditions on
> > becoming a fully supported Debian arch right - then having security supp
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough
>> evidence to downgrade anything but OpenLDAP just yet, but your reply seems
>> to imply that even if there were, you would still not downgrade.
> If there were anything besides FU
Clint Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If there were anything besides FUD, I'd consider it on its own merits,
> but all I've seen thus far is an anecdote that OpenLDAP has trouble with
> some version of db4.3 on some platform because of some undescribed flaw
> related to the log format change.
> Only now I would trust BDB 4.2 with any mission critical data... but then, I
> am the one which still builds Cyrus 2.1 against BDB 3.2 for stability (Cyrus
> 2.2 will be built against BDB 4.2).
IIRC, BDB 3.3 addresses very serious problems in 3.2, but we can't have
3.3 in Debian without a painfu
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Clint Adams wrote:
> some version of db4.3 on some platform because of some undescribed flaw
> related to the log format change. There does not appear to be a report
> in the Debian BTS about this problem.
Hmm... my experience with BDB 4.x tells me we should be quite a bit pa
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Of course, I don't mean downgrading the libdb4.3 packages :-) Those
> would just get a grave bug until the issue is fixed (assuming there
> is one, which is not clear at this point).
Before even bothering to continue this thread, whoever cl
Hi Thiemo,
On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 05:39:27PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > This change has superseded the previous SCC (second-class citizen
> > architecture) plan that had already been proposed to reduce the amount of
> > data Debian mirrors are required to carry; prior to the release of sarg
> Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough
> evidence to downgrade anything but OpenLDAP just yet, but your reply seems
> to imply that even if there were, you would still not downgrade.
If there were anything besides FUD, I'd consider it on its own merits,
but all
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Clint Adams wrote:
> > Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge?
>
> Don't bother notifying me; I won't be switching anything back to 4.2.
Why? (technical reasons, please). Not that I am assuming there is enough
evidence to downgrade anything but Op
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
I would really like to see some real use cases for architectures that
want this; I'd like to spend my time on things that're actually useful,
not random whims people have on lists -- and at the moment, I'm not in a
good position to tell the difference for most of the non
> Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge?
Don't bother notifying me; I won't be switching anything back to 4.2.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 12:08:11PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2004/06/msg00029.html is an
> example (just one randomly grabbed from the archives). See
> http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/ for more information,
> especially http://ftp-master.deb
Peter 'p2' De Schrijver wrote:
[snip]
> Why would a port release after the main release ?
Probably to fix up a few remaining arch-specific bugs.
> Why, if debian doesn't
> care about the non-release archs, would the porters even bother to
> follow the release arch sources and not just release whe
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:05:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:04:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > (This might be a topic without a possible conclusion!)
> > > Funny, but although I'd say "an HTML file" or "a
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:38:31PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> I think so. Jumping into a new BDB version like it was done for 4.3 is
> *always* foolhardy at best, IMHO.
>
> But it would be a very good idea to track down some other opinions about BDB
> 4.3 first, as people will no
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Quanah,
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:59:03PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are
>> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I
>> would be v
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Should we notify the maintainers to better go back to 4.2 for sarge?
I think so. Jumping into a new BDB version like it was done for 4.3 is
*always* foolhardy at best, IMHO.
But it would be a very good idea to track down some other opinions about
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:10:23AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > In short, I cannot find a single reason to run OpenLDAP against BDB 4.3,
> > and even the current OpenLDAP release notes that BDB 4.2 is required. I
> > can find many reasons to not use BDB 4.3.
>
> Not good. That
Hi Quanah,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 05:59:03PM -0800, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> The patches for BDB 4.2.52 are freely available from Sleepycat. They are
> required to be in place if you want a stable BDB 4.2.52 distribution. I
> would be very surprised if the package maintainer hadn't already
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:48:04PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> > Don't even bother bringing up "redundant fiber". It may be, if it hasn't
> > been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have
> > learned the hard way that th
On 10231 March 1977, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> The ftpmaster's view seems to be (I imagine not without some
> justification) that, unless the package is rejected, the average DD will
> never bother to fix it. :-/
For small stuff there is a "Prod" Option in lisa, where one can send a
mail to the m
Hi,
> > To a certain degree, those would have been fixed if people
> > build-depended on auto*, as they would have picked up fixed versions
> > of the .m4 files.
>
> But that has to be offset against the huge number of bugs that would
> occur if we ran auto* at run time and had everything break e
Hi,
> >The current practice and trend is going the other way,
> >but I strongly recommend for using autoconf/automake in build scripts.
> Does cdbs do it right?
I've looked at the source of cdbs, and I figure that users of
cdbs can configure and set variables:
DEB_AUTO_UPDATE_LIBTOOL
DEB_AUTO
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 19:30]:
> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to
> >e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if
> >an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we
> >c
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 08:22:04PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> >> Andreas Barth wrote:
> >> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
> >> >architecture to be too slo
Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I wonder if we could change Debian's attitude to NEW rejection like has
> happened with NMUs -- that having your package rejected isn't the end of the
> world, it's just something that happens. So ftpmasters could reject with
> less fear of being taken to the cleaners
On 17-Mar-05, 01:01 (CST), Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * The ability for an interface to receive, by default, only traffic that
> is destined for that interface. (Non-promiscuous mode; promiscuous mode
> availability is a big plus, but not required from the OS point of view)
Linu
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:14:05PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:06, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
> >
> > That would be one of the things
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:44:26PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:09, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
> > >> > Collecting tidbits of
> > >> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
> > >> > that informatio
On Thursday 17 March 2005 23:06, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > To know in how many packages to split or not to split the packages ?
>
> That would be one of the things that maintainers have gotten wrong in the
> past, yes.
Would it be poss
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:15:50PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:11PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> > On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > >> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > >> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 1
On Thursday 17 March 2005 07:31, Joel Aelwyn wrote:
> Don't even bother bringing up "redundant fiber". It may be, if it hasn't
> been regroomed, and twenty plus years of network administrators have
> learned the hard way that the gun is ALWAYS loaded. The best you can hope
> for is a misfire.
Debi
On Thursday 17 March 2005 22:09, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
> >> > Collecting tidbits of
> >> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
> >> > that information public.
> >>
> >> A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, in
On Thursday 17 March 2005 20:22, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
[very sensible suggestions removed]
> Any problems with that?
Not with the procedure in itself. I just want to chip in, that it is (not
only) my opinion, that a REGULAR Debian release cannot allow delaying
security updates and there
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:43:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Sven Luther:
> > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > > - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > > > ar
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:57:11PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> >> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> >> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
> >> documentation...) (what's the current opinion on tha
On 10231 March 1977, David Schmitt wrote:
>> > Collecting tidbits of
>> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
>> > that information public.
>> A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
>> package names, bugs closed, et al.
>> Nothing more
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:04:14AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > (This might be a topic without a possible conclusion!)
> > Funny, but although I'd say "an HTML file" or "an HTTPS url" or
> > similar, I'd say "a history achievement".
> Ah, i
On Wednesday 16 March 2005 20:12, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> What would really win, of course, is "Architecture: !hurd-i386". But
> negative declarations are currently not yet supported. They should
> be.
Research the problem (especially on
http://lists.debian.org/debian-{dpkg,release}/, but
On Thursday 17 March 2005 00:21, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:51:16PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> "libraries transitioned" is a big point against testing:
>
> Transitions of API-compatible libraries are a pain _only_ due to
> testing. In unstable, such a transition can easily b
Hello Marc,
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-17 21:45]:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:02:16 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 15:43]:
> >> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:40:33 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >Since I
On Mar 17, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, we are not expecting the DSA people to keep the system
> secure; SCC non-released arches don't need to provide developer
> machines.
I do not believe that this is limited to debian hosts. If an OS lacks
the basic security feature
On CÃad, 2005-03-16 at 02:33 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Alastair,
>
> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 12:30:58PM +, Alastair McKinstry wrote:
> > >* Steve Langasek
> > >
> > >| If you are planning any other transitions that will affect a lot of
> > >| packages, please let us know in advance.
On Thursday 17 March 2005 01:19, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, David Schmitt wrote:
> > Collecting tidbits of
> > information concerning the various packages rotting in NEW and making
> > that information public.
>
> A list of packages-in-NEW is available on the Web, including binary
> package name
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:12 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:36:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-02
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
[snip]
> > Okay, so we've got a new suite; is that global for all scc arches, or
> > separate, a la "subtesting-s390", say? The question there is "Will s390
> > have a different version of the package to m68k, if one or the other is
> > being more aggressively maintained
On Thursday 17 March 2005 02:59, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> > That's for sure but I want to be able to do automatic upgrades for the
> > simple cases. And at least help the admin by dumping the directory
> > before starting the upgrade and taking care of the old database files in
> > case he deci
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
>> Andreas Barth wrote:
>> >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
>> >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
>> >about kicking it out of the architec
I packaged Freevo for Debian and uploaded it some time ago. It has now
seen some attention from the FTP masters, but I've since started using
MythTV instead of Freevo. If anyone's interested in taking over the
package and uploading it, drop me a message.
Cheers,
Shaun
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:31:39PM +0100, Remi Vanicat wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Now the idea was to find some way to help them along, and this may be the
> > solution to it. Notice that they still have veto right so nothing can get
> > past
> > them if thet don't wan
Hello
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:36:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > >
Quoting Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> May I suggest reporting your HOWTO mail as a bug in the developers
> reference? That way it is at least recorded somewhere. I'd do it but I
> don't want without permission.
Feel free to do so...this will probably be a good motivation for me to
wr
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now the idea was to find some way to help them along, and this may be the
> solution to it. Notice that they still have veto right so nothing can get past
> them if thet don't want.
>
> Having them take positive action to counter the NEW review team or the
On 10231 March 1977, Sven Luther wrote:
>> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
>> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
>> documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?)
> Don't you think maintainers are big enough to know how to h
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 07:14:27PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:09:33PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> >> I am routinely running systems without any packet filtering capability
> >> on the network,
* Andreas Tille
| On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Karsten Merker wrote:
|
| >> Some, maybe. Are there lots of people running servers on m68k and arm?
| > ^^^
| > Perhaps not on m68k, but at least I do on sparc and mipsel, and I doubt
| > that I am the on
Hi Christian,
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 06:11:11PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Sigh, I *knew* someone would say this..:-)
>
> Well, I may be unlucky enough for the tutorial about "i18n/l10n
> handling for maintainers and translators" I proposed at debconf
> to be accepted. If it is, I *wil
Andreas Barth wrote:
* Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
Andreas Barth wrote:
If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
about kicking it out of the architectures
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:03:15 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:09:33PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
>> I am routinely running systems without any packet filtering capability
>> on the network, and they are perfectly able to cope. They just only
>> accept network
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:02:16 +0100, Nico Golde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 15:43]:
>> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:40:33 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Since I do care about dpatch, and I do use it a lot in my packages,
>> >I will be w
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:43:52PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sven Luther:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > > - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > > aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
> > >
Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mike Fedyk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050316 20:55]:
> > Andreas Barth wrote:
> > >If that happens for a too long period, we might consider such an
> > >architecture to be too slow to keep up, and will eventually discuss
> > >about kicking it out of the architectures we wait for
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 17:10]:
> Why can't we have separate sid->testing propagation for each arch,
> then freeze testing as before, get rid of RC bugs, and release?
Because than the security team may need to fix 11 different source
packages (or how many architectures we act
Hi,
Sven Luther:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> > aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
> > documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?)
>
> Don't yo
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 18:00 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
> > This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
> > x86, x86-64 & ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
> > m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"
>
also sprach Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.17.1734 +0100]:
> This it what I see as the attitude of *some* people: "It works on
> x86, x86-64 & ppc. Who cares about lame old and/or arches like
> m68k, arm, hppa & sparc?"
Well, there seem to be no more than two ways to get rid of this
pr
Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If you have all of the filtering rule support, then why is this even an
> issue? Write the user-space tool and you should be golden; you've got a
> useable firewalling implementation.
>
> What's the problem?
Who said there was a problem? I was asking ex
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (This might be a topic without a possible conclusion!)
> Funny, but although I'd say "an HTML file" or "an HTTPS url" or
> similar, I'd say "a history achievement".
Ah, in "a history achievement", you accent the first syllable of
"history", which pr
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:36:25PM +0100, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> - check that the package names are sane, don't conflict, and
> aren't gratuitiously many (a -doc package for 10 kbytes of
> documentation...) (what's the current opinion on that, anyway?)
Don't you think maintainers are big en
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 01:09:33PM +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:39:48 -0700, Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >* The first rule of securing a machine exposed to the wilds is "Deny by
> > default, allow by need".
>
> Which is pretty well accomplished by only running
Will Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 17 March 2005 03:16, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
>
> > ... and probably not for (that is, not unless you tell me otherwise):
> > > HPGL
> > > HTML
> > > HTTPS
>
> Traditionally I think these would use "an". Even if you pronounce "h" as
> "haich"
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:56:58PM +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 March 2005 19:14, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> > Hi, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > As far as a NEW-review team, when I raised this about a week ago, aj said
> > > that you'd effectively be ftpmasters, so why not be an ftpma
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 02:35:27AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 03:29:28PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Ideally we would see forming a little NEW-reviewing comittee which would
> > facilitate the job of the ftp-masters. This is also in accordance of the
> > small-team pro
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 16:51 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
> > * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
> > from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
> > whatever reason he has)
>
> Why
Due to a severe lack of time, I've decided to orphan a bunch of my
packages.
They are,
o hp48cc
o electric
o vipec
o libmad
o madplay
o libid3tag
I've filed bugs orphaning them, and have uploaded packages with the
maintainer set to QA.
Justificatio
also sprach Stephen Frost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.16.1707 +0100]:
> What about requiring a binary upload with the source upload, but then
> rebuilding the binary on the buildd of the uploaded binary *anyway*?
It would also address a security/trust problem with which some
professional customer
Am 2005-03-17 16:40:10, schrieb Noèl Köthe:
> Hello,
>
> we reached #30:
>
> Bug#30: libcrypt-ssleay-perl: package description typo(s) and the like
Herzlichen Glückwunsch aus Strasbourg...
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
Michell
Read my previous replies.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:01:07AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 10:54]:
> > Ah, so why is vore down now for some time now? If it's so easy to
>
> that should read as auric of course.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Andi
Vore isn't down.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:54:18AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Ben Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050317 03:25]:
> > On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 04:31:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > > Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 08:44:49PM -080
also sprach David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005.03.16.1923 +0100]:
> * relaxing "arch-specific" to also be able to exclude KDE/GNOME
> from mips (until someone commits to properly support it for
> whatever reason he has)
Why do we make a package foo's entry to testing dependent on whether
foo
[ Please respect the list code of conduct; I don't request CCs, nor does ]
[ my M-F-T get set as such. In other words, don't send them. ]
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 12:16:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Joel Aelwyn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Fine, if you want to get ped
Hello,
we reached #30:
Bug#30: libcrypt-ssleay-perl: package description typo(s) and the like
--
NoÃl KÃthe
Debian GNU/Linux, www.debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 03:12:06PM +0200, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> Before filing any bugs on this matter to the BTS, I'd like to check
> who is responsible for changing the priority of a package? Is it the
> ftpmasters or the package maintainer?
>
> The package in question is k3b, which should depen
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 09:31:12AM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:58:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > One of the problems with this is that you wouldn't benefit from the
> > "hints" the release team prepares for britney; which might screw you
> > over completely.
Hello Marc,
* Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-03-16 15:43]:
> On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:40:33 +0900, Junichi Uekawa
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Since I do care about dpatch, and I do use it a lot in my packages,
> >I will be willing to help out / adopt this package.
>
> After organizing on
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 05:58:21PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >My basic idea is to have something similar to the testing migration
> >scripts, which takes the decisions of the "master" copy running on
> >ftp-master as an input. At a minimum:
>
> I think it's easiest
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 00:10 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 06:47:09AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 23:20 +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:59:34AM +, Will Newton wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 17 March 2005 03:16, Florian Zu
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 00:41 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:20:12PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:59:34AM +, Will Newton wrote:
> > > On Thursday 17 March 2005 03:16, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
[snip]
> not even consistent in my own usage. Pro
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:45 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 16 Mars 2005 21:36, Ron Johnson a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Sa
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:32:37PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> Ok, I can guarantee that it never dies.
Sorry, but I do not believe you. "Never" is a very strong word.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/11/msg01926.html
Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subje
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
Am Do den 17. Mär 2005 um 14:13 schriebst Du:
> > o Especially on laptops, it might be interesting to also encrypt all of
> > /home and/or other parts of the harddrive to make the data unusuable
> > without the USB key. But how to integrate this w
Evan Cox wrote:
Hi Guys,
I hope this is the right area to send this email. My apologies if I am
wrong. If so, please forward to the appropriate area.
I have fiddles with Linux distro's for approx 3 years, and found Debian 3
months ago. I adore it, and will be using debian from now on.
I wo
Am 2005-03-16 21:18:33, schrieb Ola Lundqvist:
> Hello
> Some people tend to have really large inboxes. I have had a number of
> customers that have several GB inbox. They tend to get quite a lot
> of attachments (reports etc) and do not have the time to delete mail.
> It will grow quite fast.
Yo
Howdy to all database enthusiasts!
PostgreSQL 8.0 is out to the public for a few weeks now, and the
amount of emails asking "When can we get the debs?" is increasing
every day. In addition, the current structure and packaging of the
existing PostgreSQL 7.4 packages became too clumsy and inflexible
Hi, Marc Haber wrote:
> What is the advantage of having a correctly maintained system behind
> a firewall?
Umm, multiple (different) safety guards in sequence, which the attacker
would have to overcome, are assumed to be more secure than just one.
Accidents happen. So do security advisories.
--
Hi, Domenico Andreoli wrote:
> hey, we are near bug #30! (299925 currently. who'll ride the next?)
We're also near the Unix timestamp of 11, which will be at
2005-03-18 01:58:31 UTC.
Neither factoid is particularly helpful for getting Sargte's RC bug count
down. ;-)
--
Matthias Url
On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 11:20:12PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:59:34AM +, Will Newton wrote:
> > On Thursday 17 March 2005 03:16, Florian Zumbiehl wrote:
> > > ... and probably not for (that is, not unless you tell me otherwise):
> > > > HPGL
> > > > HTML
> > > >
Before filing any bugs on this matter to the BTS, I'd like to check
who is responsible for changing the priority of a package? Is it the
ftpmasters or the package maintainer?
The package in question is k3b, which should depend on cdrdao, but
cdrdao is too low priority for that. So, either k3b need
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
