Package: glibc
This package depends/pre-depends on debconf without allowing the dependency
to be satisfied with an alternate of debconf-2.0. That is to say, its
dependency should read: debconf | debconf-2.0
Until this is fixed, it is impossible to use this package with cdebconf,
and very hard to
Hi,
I'm working on packaging Plash for Debian. Plash is a restricted
execution environment that provides functionality similar to chroot(),
but more flexible and lightweight. It works partly by dynamically
linking Linux executables with a modified glibc. (This is not used
for taking authority a
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 03:17:33PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> Are there any useful "real" error messages now? For example, if nscd is
> not running, trying to invalidate a non-existing map will not produce an
> error message, and if nscd is running, the error message is misleading.
I don't know,
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:41:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> Adduser has _a lot_ of installations and is mainly used by maintainer
> scripts. Thus, _a lot_ of people are bound to see error messages
> generated by adduser and are bound to be confused by them.
>
> > Or you can just add "2>/dev/nul
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:38:56PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > I am concerned about nscd suddenly giving an actual error message
> > instead of silently returning non-zero, which might confuse the users.
>
> Well, my personal prefere
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 02:18:18PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am concerned about nscd suddenly giving an actual error message
> instead of silently returning non-zero, which might confuse the users.
Well, my personal preference would be not to worry about this until it
becomes a real issue (tha
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:28:07PM +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> > That's how we're going to do it in the future. I would, however, like
> > to have the fact documented that it is not an error to run nscd -i if
> > no daemon is running.
>
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 06:07:26PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> That's how we're going to do it in the future. I would, however, like
> to have the fact documented that it is not an error to run nscd -i if
> no daemon is running.
What do you mean by "not an error"? nscd -i of course will return a
n
I'm curious as to if this will ever make it into Sarge?
--
Anthony Tippett
begin:vcard
fn:Anthony Tippett
n:Tippett;Anthony
org:Sports-IT;Engineering
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:CTO
tel;fax:425-642-8246
tel;cell:425-443-3152
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.sports-it.com
version:2.
9 matches
Mail list logo