W dniu 18.05.2013 18:00, Adam Borowski pisze:
I've noticed that virtualbox moved from main to contrib
It's a major loss.
However, Watcom is needed only for 16-bit code, and VirtualBox has an EFI
mode. Would it be possible to restrict it to EFI only in main, unless the
BIOS from contrib is
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
There might be even more if you assume that you can co-install Linux an=
d
kFreeBSD binaries (yay, multi-arch world!).
They might be co-installable but not executable (for the time being).
The Linux emulation layer which is featured by kFreeBSD only
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
Is there such an option? And if not, can we please please have one?
aptitude safe-upgrade has been around for years.
Not a solution for the interactive mode, or am I wrong?
You can use aptitude --safe-resolver.
--
pozdr(); // Jarek
--
To
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
Trying to run unmodified Debian on 64MB is a suicide, I'd say the weakest
type that are going to run stock Debian are chroots on n900, which, with
256MB, can handle all the phony stuff together with decompression just fine.
If you allow for everything
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
upstream or ignoring the problem):
* wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
Debian package)
This won't work in some cases. Some native programs
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I see only two ways of fixing proprietary Java (apart from fixing it
upstream or ignoring the problem):
* wrap java and java_vm binaries in some scripts setting LD_PRELOAD (in
Debian package)
or
* allow sun-java6-* packages to override bindv6only
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I believe that now we fixed ~everything which can be fixed, so this
leaves us with the proprietary Java implementation which apparently Sun
is unwilling to fix.
Unless the maintainer believes that we can get a fixed version before
the release then I
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
3) There are potential security bugs if an application black- or
white-lists IPv4 addresses and someone uses an v6-mapped IPv4 address to
connect. (Handwavy and, as far as I've seen, purely hypothetical.
I don't want to blow the discussion once
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I've been reading through the archives in order to find out if there's
been any consensus on the controversial change to the default value of
net.ipv6.bindv6only -- and unless I've missed something, I'm under the
impression that people agree that the
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 04:46:17PM +0200, Salvo Tomaselli wrote:
On Monday 26 April 2010 16:14:05 Jarek Kamiński wrote:
If some program needs specific value of bindv6only, it should request it
explicitly with one simple setsockopt(). And according to
http://bugs.debian.org/560238, only one
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
I have failures now with a client that cannot connect() to the IPv4 address
but get an ENETUNREACH instead.
The application DOES set this socket option:
socket(PF_INET6, SOCK_STREAM, IPPROTO_IP) = 3
^-- You meant
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
Jarek Kamiński ja...@vilo.eu.org writes:
Yes. Following code actually works (runs with bindv6only enabled,
listens on [::]:1234 and accepts connection made to localhost:1234):
I'm sure it works. But I wanted to note that localhost is somewhat
Na grupie linux.debian.devel napisałe(a)ś:
Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Oct 24, Marco d'Itri m...@linux.it wrote:
I am proposing to set net.ipv6.bindv6only=1 by default for new
installations
Done, let's see what breaks. :-)
All of Java, it seems [1]. I'm very surprised this breakage was known in
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:00:01PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
And bindv6only=0 is also not RFC compliant. However, a *lot* of applications
that use listening sockets will not work correctly anymore when you change
the
default. So it probably is better to make it a release goal that
14 matches
Mail list logo
