Yes, I said to you that I may NMU gnudip, unfortunetaly I haven't found
the time to do so ...
well, it's my package, so it's my fault i don't suppose i can get it
back in somehow? :/
randolph
--
Debian Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.TauSq.org/
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 01:24:03AM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
The whole file --- verifying each entry would take at least three minutes
on my hardware, and god knows how long on anything moderately old or
outdated. I certainly wouldn't want to try it on m68k on a regular basis,
eg. (If
gnome-db is a a shot at something like the ODBC api's available under windows.
I proposed the idea on gnome-list many moons ago, and it was picked up by
Michael Lausch, who I believe is the main developer.
But why don't they use ODBC on Linux?
Permissions on mount points don't seem to make much difference. I was able
to
mount a filesystem on a mount point with mode 0, and once mounted the
permissions come from the mounted filesystem, not the mount point.
While we are at it, is there a rationale for /boot to be root.disk,
It might be a good idea to look up what (if anything) POSIX says about this.
Thanks
Bruce
Lalo Martins writes:
Hi. I'm dropping all my packages. That is dcd (a console CD
player) and lletters (a children game). Freeciv has already
been adopted by Jules Bean.
I'll take both dcd _AND_ lletters. I'm not a full
developer, but I've got a sponsor.
Mike Mattice
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 12:15:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
(among many other minor typos)
You can differentiated probably good but outdated old packages, and probably
^^
This should read can't differentiate. Whoops.
bad but outdated old packages, no. On the upside,
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
I'm not sure why this isn't getting through. Automatically, cavalierly
signing Packages.gz on master *HAS DEFINITE GAINS OVER THE PRESENT WAY
OF DOING THINGS*.
How exactly do you propose to transfer a verification key to the clients?
I can't think of
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:53:06AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
Your complaint against us using the DUL is valid. It should not be
used. Your complaint against IWJ is not, and your complain/threat
against Debian even less so since we are not doing that.
I'm making no threat. I reserve the
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:18:47PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
your right to free speech does not include the right to force anyone
else to listen.
Then this principle must apply universally. I reserve the right to ignore
bug reports for any reason I choose, then.
--
G. Branden Robinson
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 03:00:35PM +0100, Diana Galletly wrote:
Yes, sure we could get other addresses that don't use SAUCE, but
some of them might use DUL or some such, and then Joseph would be
ranting ...
Well, everything has consequences.
Sysadmins have the right to employ DUL.
People on
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 08:22:14PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
How exactly do you propose to transfer a verification key to the clients?
I can't think of any decent way to do this that isn't prone to some kind
of hack-a-mirror thing or involves annoying extra steps.
Just about everything is
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 09:45:35AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 03:55:39AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
I suggest you close bugs filed by such people without comment.
Call it the Malicious Blacklist User Behavior Modification System.
Of course, you could always
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* the web of trust, and having the ftp-team sign it
The average user has no entry to the web of trust, so this is just as
useless. (and massively involved for our poor end user)
* putting a fingerprint on the website and in Debian books,
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:31:31PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
* the web of trust, and having the ftp-team sign it
The average user has no entry to the web of trust, so this is just as
useless. (and massively involved for our poor end user)
It's
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Anthony Towns wrote:
Why would verifying a new security-key necessarily be significantly harder
than verifying a new unstable-key, though? In both cases you only really
want to check that its signed by the previous security-key.
But in the other case it replaces/augements
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:08:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:18:47PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
your right to free speech does not include the right to force anyone
else to listen.
Then this principle must apply universally. I reserve the right to ignore
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:11:27PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:08:53PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:18:47PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
your right to free speech does not include the right to force anyone
else to listen.
Then
At the time there wasn't strong odbc support for Linux. This was around the
summer of 1998, back when GNOME was mystic to build, and there were no Debian
packages (Jim Pick was the maintainer at the time, not to insult him :) ). I
believe the plan was to use ODBC at some level, but I do not know
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 02:43:19PM -0800, Seth R Arnold wrote:
The ballots came from:
216 people, if I counted right (wc(1) :). So much for the `300 active
developers' vaporware, even if you include dissidents et al...
Wouldn't this be more properly FUD?
:)
What?
--
Digital
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 12:17:26AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
[new lists created]
On related note, why not have new-maintainer lists on our listserver,
too?
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Hi,
I'm curious how this issue is going to be handled now that it has been
discussed. (The archives don't seem to be seeing any new messages on this
topic.) What has to occur before this cryptographic signing of
Packages actually happens?
Does it need to become part of policy? (in which case
Le Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 05:49:37PM -0700, Randolph Chung écrivait:
Yes, I said to you that I may NMU gnudip, unfortunetaly I haven't found
the time to do so ...
well, it's my package, so it's my fault i don't suppose i can get it
back in somehow? :/
Ask Richard Braakman, he may
Hallo,
I am right now packaging three Emacs programming modes, I
wrote between 1997 and last week: ttcn3.el, ttcn.el, and
tm.el. These are for the TTCN-3 core language, the current
TTCN.MP language (version 2), and the Test Manager language
(an Forth enhancement of the Tektronix K1297 protocol
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:09:45AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Then that is what you do every time you reject an incoming mail message
having to do with project business.
you know, you have a point there - if i wanted to redefine reality into
some bizarre idiosyncratic perception of it then
Hi Josip!
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 12:17:26AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
[new lists created]
On related note, why not have new-maintainer lists on our listserver,
too?
Isn't this what debian-mentors is for?
yours,
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:19:24PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
[new lists created]
On related note, why not have new-maintainer lists on our listserver,
too?
Isn't this what debian-mentors is for?
No, I mean the nm-admin and nm-discuss lists, about the new-maintainer
group, those
Hi Josip!
On Sat, 01 Apr 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 02:19:24PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
[new lists created]
On related note, why not have new-maintainer lists on our listserver,
too?
Isn't this what debian-mentors is for?
No, I mean the nm-admin
Hi,
I am working on the package eshell, a command shell
implemented entirely in Emacs Lisp. I am also packaging
pcomplete which is included the source archive of eshell.
Both eshell and pcomplete are licensed under the GPL.
You can get more information about eshell at
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 08:22:14PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
You are wrong about signed .debs vs signed package files. Signed .debs are
not worth the bytes to transfer a signature and the time check it. Their
only real use is to check the master archive against hack/corruption and
even
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 12:55:53PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
But unfortunately that's not quite the choice I have either, since for
some reason that I can't fathom, people seem to think that a dinstall
key would be an abomination to man and God and I'd probably be summarily
kicked out
On Tue, Mar 28, 2000 at 12:41:22AM -0500, Chris Frey wrote:
Quoting from the mailing list archives... :-)
Marcus Brinkmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Mar 26, 2000 at 09:00:34AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
The whole file --- verifying each entry would take at least three minutes
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:19:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 09:45:35AM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
Of course, you could always just get the work done and email back
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]; since it'll go through Debian the
email will indeed arrive just fine.
There's a project under way out of Finland to develop a POSIX compliant
kernel (see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/PEOPLE/Linus/) I don't know if
it will go anywhere as it based on an obsolete monolithic design but some
people seem to like so it might be a good addition to Debian. The license
is
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:40:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
Okay, 62.43% isn't so bad, but it doesn't really take that much effort to
vote in Debian, IMHO.
You've just got to decide how to vote first.
--
Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness)
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 10:39:34 -0500, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
There's a project under way out of Finland to develop a POSIX compliant
kernel (see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/PEOPLE/Linus/) I don't know if
it will go anywhere as it based on an obsolete monolithic design but some
people seem
Branden Robinson writes (Re: Ian Jackson, please get me the hell off your
blacklist.):
Sending me mails -- with whatever content -- and discarding my replies
regardless of their content is nothing short of harassment.
[further polemic]
I reiterate, iwj and I are discussing this in private
Hi.
I've packaged the new version of pharmacy (0.2.1a), and they can be found on
http://w3.ualg.pt/~pmguerre/debian/pharmacy
The pharmacy home page can be found on http://pharmacy.sourceforge.net
For those unfamiliar with pharmacy, it's a GNOME frontend to CVS. It's still
under development,
Please do not install this package, but wait for the next version
(presumably 2.95.2-9). If you install this, apt-get will be broken, and
updates will not be possible until you manually install the fixed version
with dpkg.
Ben
--
Darn, I wish you'd sent this sooner. Caught me on
three sparc systems. I downgraded to the prior version
and things seem ok now.
Ben Collins wrote:
Please do not install this package, but wait for the next version
(presumably 2.95.2-9). If you install this, apt-get
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 11:19:40PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
Blacklisters may have the right to speak and *say* what they think I should
do, but they have no right to be heard.
If you have the right to refuse to listen to me on my terms, I have the
right to refuse to listen to you on
Are there problems with the mailing lists? devel-digest stopped
coming 3 days ago. Other @home users say that mail has become
unrealiable so I signed on from another address yesterday and
haven't gotten a digest yet. debian-devel seems fine.
And the debian-devel archive is a bit behind. The
eric writes:
Darn, I wish you'd sent this sooner. Caught me on
three sparc systems. I downgraded to the prior version
and things seem ok now.
Ben Collins wrote:
Please do not install this package, but wait for the next version
(presumably 2.95.2-9). If you
Ben Collins writes:
Please do not install this package, but wait for the next version
(presumably 2.95.2-9). If you install this, apt-get will be broken, and
updates will not be possible until you manually install the fixed version
with dpkg.
I just make an apt-get upgradde and is now
Date:Sat, 01 Apr 2000 10:39:34 EST
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
From:Jaldhar H. Vyas [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: ITP: Linux
There's a project under way out of Finland to develop a POSIX compliant
kernel (see ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/linux/PEOPLE/Linus/) I don't know if
it
Caution, IANAD. Just tring to help
Package: cricket (debian/main)
Maintainer: Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
56948 cricket depends on non-existant package
Package: ftp.debian.org (pseudo)
Maintainer: Guy Maor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
60707 cricket depends on a nonexistent package
Shouldn't
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:57:25PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote a free reimplementation of this,
gnuhtml2latex, so html2latex was removed.
Got this too. Thanks.
These both still seem to be in woody.
So maybe they had release critical bugs. I cannot check that right
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 02:25:16PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
# apt-get install intlfonts-european
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Package intlfonts-european has no available version, but exists in the
database.
This typically means that the package was
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 08:15:22AM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
eaudio
Um, xmms I think.
Since xmms does not mention eaudio anywhere in its control file I though
these two programs were completely different.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Michael Meskes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 08:15:22AM -0500, Michael Alan Dorman wrote:
eaudio
Um, xmms I think.
Since xmms does not mention eaudio anywhere in its control file I though
these two programs were completely different.
Well, the author of eaudio dropped
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
It seems you feel personally insulted. I am sorry for this, but
unfortunately it doesn't change the situation that the signed packages case
adds a further point of weakness to the chain of trust.
Interesting. So signing
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 06:32:50PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Yes, but you have not the right (what loaded words!) to close the bug
reports. Feel free to ignore them, but don't close them without a better
reason.
I would close such bugs if I need further information (and can't reproduce
Hi,
I looking for a pgcc debian distribution/package... But, nothing !
I don't know why.
Is someone able to explain ?
Thank.
begin:vcard
n:Chantereau;Romain
tel;cell:06 70 27 03 47
tel;fax:01 43 66 25 72
tel;home:01 43 66 25 72
tel;work:Student
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
adr:;;33, rue de la
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 08:52:36PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:00:20PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
It seems you feel personally insulted. I am sorry for this, but
unfortunately it doesn't change the situation that the signed packages case
adds a further
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:20:00PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
If you really want the topic only to continue in email I suggest that
you abide by that yourself ! If you continue to post these kinds of
heated messages on -devel you can hardly complain when people respond.
It's a matter of
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
You should at the very least mention why you're closing the bug report.
It may, for example, be the case that user is unaware that their usual
mail system uses the DUL or whatever. Randomly closed bugreports will
just annoy people
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 10:28:56PM +0200, Romain Chantereau wrote:
I looking for a pgcc debian distribution/package... But, nothing !
I don't know why.
Is someone able to explain ?
Basically, nobody voulenteered to maintain it. From the PGCC FAQ:
| Q: Are there Debian packages of PGCC?
|
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:00:57PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 04:02:43PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
You should at the very least mention why you're closing the bug report.
Did you bother to read my close message? Obviously not. I did in fact
include an
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
In the signed .debs case, I, as a developer, assert that the package comes
from me. A user can directly verify this by checking the signature.
No, the user cannot verify that. The user can check the signature against
our keyring but they have no
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
Wrong. If you have signed debs, and you are careful when updating the
debian-keyring package, there is no risk even if master is compromised.
Hahha!
Sorry, your are deluded if you belive this : Seriously, if someone can
hack master we are all
On Sat, 1 Apr 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
We already use link 1 (signed changes files), and trust it. This won't
be changed by either proposal. Yes, even in the signed packages file you
trust all developers keys.
We only trust link1 due to the vigilance of our FTP masters and people
On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 03:16:23PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
How many people
foward ssh agents and put that key in their home .ssh/authorized_keys?
What does that mean? It could easily be that I am doing something
wrong without even realising it
Julian
--
62 matches
Mail list logo
