On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:54:18PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 03:29:06PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > It could. I decided that building four was excessive and having
> > the act of installing libc6-i686 act to disable NPTL would be a little
>
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 12:13:19PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 10:19:39PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > &g
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:21:57PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
>
an debian-devel. It looks like that bug may have been closed in
> error.
No, it was closed because I could reproduce the problem with 2.3.2-9
and not with 2.3.2.ds1-8. Do you have some evidence of an error?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 11:28:29AM +0800, Isaac To wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Daniel> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> &g
ion doesn't
> > belong on the ITP bug.
>
> And why is it only for 2.6 kernels? The processor specific package should
> support NPTL, and it doesn't require 2.6...
That sentence is contradictory - NPTL requires 2.6.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
se let me know how.
> Thanx
This is inappropriate for -devel.
It's also like a quarter of a bug report. What versions of libc, perl,
etc are installed? What architecture? What kernel version? What have
you changed lately?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Debian is behind Fedora and is not showing any signs of catching
> up...
We'd need a hell of a lot more evidence of PIE's value before I'd let
anyone inflict that on Debian by default. It's both dubious and a
nuisance to developers, since it increases irreproducibility.
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:20:25PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Then how do you suggest maintaining a kernel 2.4.20 for one
> > architecture and a 2.4.22 for another architecture, when you can't
be much appreciated.
Eventually, the right thing to do will be something like 1.0~cr2 which
is less than 1.0. That won't be allowed till after sarge, IIRC.
For now, the right thing to do would have been 0.999, or some similarly
gross hack.
To correct it, at this point, you need either t
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:48:06PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 04:22:27PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > > > If you think that, then you don't understand why they are al
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 10:18:37PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:35:52PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > I haven't noticed, so thanks for pointing this out. The fix is trivial,
> > > btw.
> >
> > If you thi
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:32:02PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:00:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Have you perhaps noticed that the kernels from every architecture build
> > from different source packages? Why don't you spend a little time
gt; #215010: Illegal instruction with 2.2 kernel
>
>This is not unusual. IIRC, Woody's Glibc wasn't supported by Linux 2.0 (I
>once tried an upgrade from Slink after the Woody release)
I fail to see how a bug in the 2.2 kernel, triggered by a recent glibc
update, dicta
ernel-headers to simple system-headers-linux?
> This will prevent confused users (or: lazy to read the description users)
> from asking this again and again.
Because at this point it'd be a nuisance to rename it, I decided not
to. If there is a strong consensus to the contrary we can
.patch files for the Debian-local changes to the
kernel headers. This way was most convenient. Also, most fixes to the
kernel headers do not require glibc to be rebuilt.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
be if aptitude or perhaps even apt checked for
> earlier versions of the package in the pool and offered them as options if the
> current one fails to configure.
No, really. This is what stable and testing releases are for.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 02:18:29PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > I don't know whether this package needs to match the kernel version or
> > > not, but if not I think the name is poorly chose
On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:03:02PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> As some of you may have seen, there's a new version of glibc in unstable.
Joey has kindly pointed out that I'm out of my mind. "There's a new
version of glibc in experimental."
--
Daniel Ja
a built
linux-kernel-headers .deb, export LINUX_SOURCE pointing at /usr in the
unpacked linux-kernel-headers tree, and use dpkg-buildpackage -d to ignore
the dependency.
We're counting on your help to get this package in shape (hopefully) for
sarge!
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
s!
Please search the list archives for the reasons why source uploads are
not allowed. This has been hashed out before. Highlights:
- it encourages carelessness
- Architecture: all packages would not get built
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 12:48:28PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Often worse, due to the dramatically increased amount of data which
> > must be loaded from disk in a cold-cache situation. Another 800K of
>
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 06:35:38PM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 11:57:40AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 10:38:49AM +0200, Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 09:52:28AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> &
ian packages doesn't mean that we should
> deprecate it. Unless you're willing to convince the admin of the
> beowulf cluster next door to install libyoddafoo on several hundred
> nodes for me.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your conclusions; just your reasoning.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
behavior change: SIGRTMIN is no longer 32, but the lowest
signal number not reserved by glibc. But that's not likely to be your
problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
cussion.
Ditto.
When an update is made to the stable release,
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Sun, Oct 05, 2003 at 09:49:17AM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 03, 2003 at 11:21:21PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I've just placed a new glibc package for experimental in incoming.
> > libc6-i686 is new, so it may be a few days before it shows up in the
standard Debian patches have been omitted. They will be re-added
in a future version. And this package probably won't build on non-i686.
Also to be fixed soon.
Barring those, any test results are appreciated, please send to
debian-glibc.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software
: foo (<< A) | foo (>> B)"?
>
> No, my package does not depend in any way on foo. Depending on foo only
> to prevent a few specific versions of foo to be installed would be evil,
> AFAICS...
The best extant solution to this is just to Conflicts: foo (<= B).
Forcing an upgrade isn't such a bad thing...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:51:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 00:25:27 -0400
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to
> > a problem!
>
> A failed kernel compile
g 3.3 somehow equates to 2.95.
I fail to see how 2.95 installing both 3.3 and 2.95 somehow equates to
a problem! It brings in 3.3 for hysterical raisins, but that doesn't
stop gcc-2.95 from being perfectly usable.
I build kernels with alternate compilers all the time. Did you check
the log t
> check that it is owned by the uid under which its contents will be executed
> before trusting it.
It is also important to stat beforehand, to prevent stupid symlink
tricks, if we're going to be paranoid about writes to the directory.
Then you compare dev/inode with the fstat.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 02:52:04PM +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 14:44, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > The last time I tried to use CUPS, I found it to be so user friendly
> > that I couldn't get it to do anything useful. Very pretty, less
> > functio
hile lprng was anything but user-friendly, it was
simple and well-documented. Much more important to have something that
works before you go making it user-friendly!
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 07:03:22PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, May 24, 2003 at 11:37:09AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > Guido, you're not going about it the right way. It's a three-way
> > merge. You take a kernel.org tree, diff it against the a
merge the other way: kernel.org tarball
diffed against Herbert's packages, wiggle those diffs on top of your
architecture tree, diff the result against the kernel-source package,
and call that your archictecture patch.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
priate
> sudo permissions for all DDs would suffice, but it is usually not installed.
> So, is there any alternative for installing packages to satisfy build-deps
> other than sending email to debian-admin?
>
> If I'm being dense and the answer is obvious
;re all blocked on gcc-3.2, which is awaiting a successful
> m68k build, a successful gcc-3.3 build on powerpc, and probably some
> other hackery.
PowerPC's fixed. m68k is a whole other problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
erl bug which
shouldn't be too hard to track down, and a couple of bugs that want more
automatic configuration when libapache-mod-perl is installed that I'm not
sure I agree with. Also one bug for uninstalling libapache-mod-perl, but
I'll fix that tonight.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
Monta
ler bug,
and I sent him the patch for it. This should be consistent with other
architectures.
Same for any other architecture which has this problem.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
slash).
>
> Ofcourse, they'll get the rpath thing wrong and commercial applications
> are going to insist on /lib64, shiver.
Well, it's written into the ABI documentation for at least a few
platforms now, so it's a bit late to do anything about it :(
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
h
multiple names. We could make this easier in dpkg probably. And then
you would only install i386 packages if there wasn't an x86-64 package
with the same package name...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
me to be yet another one of the sugar-it-down-for-dummies
> features that found its way into browsers, so that you can type in the URL
> box "microsoft" and it will deduce that you really meant
> "www.microsoft.com". (After all, don't all domains start with w
If we build everything in
> unstable against the new libc6 we fail to test that. I guess we test the new
> libc6 headers? Really that's *all* we gain by building against the new
> libc6. (I hope the new libc6 headers aren't broken, since that would be
> pathetic!)
Welcome to changing kernel and libc interfaces. Welcome to the real
world. "Broken" is too simpleminded of a term.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
ng a binary
> install-info until perl 5.80's regex stops leaking
> memory like a sieve?
Debian install-info is NOT the same program as Texinfo's install-info.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
theory, at least.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
s in the definition of unstable. Problems need to be a great
deal more widespread before we would resort to backing down from an
upgrade.
I am working with Brendan to help him reproduce this bug.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
vel.
No, that should work fine. I don't know what's broken... you may wish
to try extracting all the objects via ar and relinking them; that
should be pretty easy, but I'm not sure it will help.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
es that were already NMU'd.
Great. I'll take care of modperl and apache-perl today.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
ll piss anyone off especially
> given the comment from GNU endorsing an extension like this.
The comment is old. I don't think that attitude is current. I suspect
that Ulrich will not look kindly at this sort of local linker hackery.
And, yet again, you're i
points, though the current "real" maintainer is David Gibson, IIRC.
He was almost right:
Author: Jouni Malinen, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> or <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For HostAP, that is. Which I still recommend.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
nts...
> maybe that issue is already settled.
They chose (and choose, repeatedly) to subscribe. There's really squat
we can do about it except continue complaining to them.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
packages that depend on some version of
>
> There's also the case that with gcc-2.95, you could cheat and write C++
> without using the standard lib, and not have to link it. This ability is
> gone with 3.0 and higher. (note that telnet depends on libstdc++ on
> hppa -- but
xceptions in any way then yes, almost
certainly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
On Sun, Aug 11, 2002 at 09:25:21AM +0300, Kalle Valo wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Do you mean C++?
>
> The subject says g++ so I would guess he uses C++.
>
> > It's being worked on. Slowly; it's very complicated.
>
On Wed, Apr 17, 2002 at 12:16:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> The gpm v1.19.6-12 binary was built for powerpc on voltaire
> 2002-03-23, but it is still missing from the archive. Anyone know why
> this binary is missing?
No idea, but I've requeued it.
--
ot; goes away.
>
> but then I get plentyful of undefined references. Ex:
If you're testing this on your x86 (or similar) platform, the undefined
references are to be expected. You can't link 2.95 and 3.0 C++ code,
and QT is 2.95 C++ code. Try working on one of the architectures in
only one program in the caliber of VMWare, and that's VMWare itself.
You're perfectly free to not use it, but those of us who have to get
work done are also perfectly free to use it - and Debian's Social
Contract, as Anthony pointed out, says that we'll try to help peopl
uch exclusively, as far as
they're concerned. Everywhere they're still pulled into glibc is a bug
no one's bothered to fix yet.
> appears to be a very large philosophical gulf here. The fact that the
Definitely, but nothing new to cope with.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
ven shorten it as far as -q if it doesn't
> conflict with something.
There's already a -quiet. It doesn't mean what you think it does :) I
believe it doesn't send to -bugs-dist - don't ask me how it's different
from -maintonly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
nd out messages with no informational content if all or most
people are just going to discard them?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:20:31PM -0500, Doug Porter wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms
> > of "Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not,
> > it
Is there anyone out there who actually appreciates the storms of
"Information received" acks that debbugs generates? If not, it is
fairly simple to turn them off - we just need to decide to do so.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVist
long) == 1.
Or he could have char redefined in a really stupid and non-C-conforming
header somewhere someday. Not his fault.
Characters intended to contain character data should in fact be 'char'
rather tahn explicitly signed. The C library expects them that way;
and the default is cho
e key, generally. This is
equivalent to giving all your users the passphrase. Recovering it with
a debugger is a trivial exercise for the reader.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
provide
> an awful lot of security, and a determined attacker might find a way
> to circumvent it, but it's already a lot better than a completely open
> account.
Don't even bother :) Use command restriction. man sshd(8), search for
command=.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
What you are
> doing is building a case against ssh-agent, keychain is just a wrapper
> around it.
Keychain is functionaly equivalent to a passphraseless key, though.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Voltaire is about to move temporarily across the country. It should be
available again in about a week; it might take as long as two.
Debian/PowerPC may languish a little bit in its absence :(
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software
ackages on a faster machine.
Alpha is, I believe, the same way. As is ARM, and possibly sparc...
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software Debian Security Team
dress is [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm told that mail to that address
> goes to at least two other debian developers. One of whom made this
> upload:
>
> -- Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tue, 21 Nov 2000 21:52:34 -0500
>
> I guess the people behind ncurses-maint ma
an.org/79460 for more of my thoughts on this
subject.
Dan
/----\ /----\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\/ \/
try to do apache-perl when I get back to school in
January (two weeks).
Dan
/--------\ /\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie Mellon University |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\/ \/
nds to me like a bug in open(1) then, no? Does it at least chown()
them to the user opening them?
Dan
/----\ /\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|__|SCS Class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer__Carnegie M
On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:37:50PM -0500, Phillip R. Jaenke wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> > Unless I'm severely mistaken, the userland for all lines of Power* CPUs
> > should be identical, minus a
es of Power* CPUs
should be identical, minus a few hardware-related programs. The major
portion of the work is kernel; if you can get them to boot, we'll
gladly support the installation process.
Dan
/\ /\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|__| CMU, CS class of 2002 |
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer__ Part-Time Systems Programmer |
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | |[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
\/ \/
Macintoshes.
Installing on ANYTHING is a bit undersupported. All of the packages
should work, though, once you get them installed. I suggest you join
the debian-powerpc mailing list.
Dan
/\ /----\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|__| CMU,
25 - because we needed it for sparc, so we uploaded the source.
powerpc, actually. I take full responsibility. It's going to go away
shortly, assuming 2.2.0 powerpc packages work OK.
Dan
/----\ /----\
| Daniel Jacobowitz|
101 - 178 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
