In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sylvain LE GALL [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:37:44PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:27:03PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
Hello,
In one of the package i maitain i have a config script which begin by
asking if
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. defaultdelivery is to generic. Delivery of what?
How about /etc/default/mailbox
# Format (Maildir, MH, mbox, mbx)
INBOX_FORMAT=Maildir
Ok.
What is mbx?
It's an indexed mbox, used by wu-imapd. Exim has support for it,
and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.magma.com.ni/~jorge/proposal/delivery.html
1. Files in /etc/default use KEY=VALUE format, so keep it that way
2. defaultdelivery is to generic. Delivery of what?
How about /etc/default/mailbox
# Format (Maildir, MH,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all
*-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-*
(rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update).
Is there documentation online
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Craig Small [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
is missing some nices things etc.
Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
policy either mention the LSB or have the same
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]:
Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about
*.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed.
Really? I guess that could be. On what basis do
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020107 12:39]:
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] [020106 22:23]:
Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about
*.deb
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Grant Bowman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, Init files shall accept one argument, saying what to do with
all of {start, stop, restart, reload, force-reload, status} being
listed. This indicates to me that this is a required change to be LSB
compliant and a
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We
would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts.
Then there is the call for specific versions of glibc and a few
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move
all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen.
Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install
.lsb files *as well*
we can support the installation
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
Well no, packages in .lsb that have an /etc/init.d/initscript must
support the 'status' option but Debian packages don't have to do
that as they are Debian packages
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. Benchmarking mbox versus maildir
http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/
This has to be a joke. Everybody who knows something about mail servers
can tell UW-* programs suck. The benchmark only confirms this, not that
According to Anthony Towns:
On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 12:51:05PM +, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
(it usually is not, and it definitely is not for
tipical POP servers).
Still, deleting messages from a mbox-style mailbox means copying
the entire mailbox usually at least twice
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if you're read linux-kernel recently, resource forks definitely
will never be part of (mainstream) Linux. Nasty evil things!
I think that Linus has recently said he wouldn't be opposed to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that in order to take full advantage of capabilities, files should
not be owned by root. Files should be owned by a non-login user (e.g. bin).
That would not be a logical step. Right now
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Roland Rosenfeld [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please don't forget that liblockfile 1.01 (didn't see a newer version
yet) does not provide nfs-safe locking, which violates policy chapter
5.6. So I dissuade from using liblockfile for MUAs until this problem
is solved (see
for not saying a lot.
--
The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway addresses.
Reply to the list or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
According to Tomasz Wêgrzanowski:
Note that 'shutdown' was NOT designed to be run setuid - for all
I know it's full of grave security holes if you do. You then not
only gave the people in the group 'power' permission to shut down
the machine, you just granted them root access as well ...
According to Seth R Arnold:
I think this might be debian-specific -- I do remember on other versions of
unix, and probably even on other linux distributions -- that calling halt or
reboot directly is a Very Bad Thing, unless things are worse on their own. :)
Well it's pretty much
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
But the source might contain a buffer overflow exploit, or another
exploit. Yes, I wrote the code myself, and there is even a comment
in the code about running setuid in a special group. But in my experience
_every_ setuid program has at least one hole, no
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
Think of command line arguments, environment variables .. that's
all 'user input'
This (command line arguments, environment variables) is
what i checked in manpages.
Never ever trust manpages. Read the source.
But theres nothing about
such things (i
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tomasz_W=EAgrzanowski?= [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest a new group `power'
and setting privileges of shutdown and halt (reboot is symlink to halt) to:
-rwsr-xr-- 1 root power6876 Jan 12 1999 /sbin/halt
-rwsr-xr-- 1 root power
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
fcntl().
But only fcntl() locking is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Jason Gunthorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
fcntl().
But only fcntl() locking is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Marco d'Itri [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 27, Philip Hands [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
mbox format mail is not safe over NFS even if there is locking.
Is not safe if there is a crash, but otherwise it works.
So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be extremely happy if Debian decided to drop the new way and
just join the rest of the distributions with the (admittedly not the
best way) symlinks. Yes, I've read the rationale for doing it our way,
but it breaks *so
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Miquel van Smoorenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Duh. Compile with -I/usr/src/linux/include.
Ofcourse I just realized that was not a very constructive remark, sorry.
So I'll put in a useful one.
If you compile software like gated, which wants to do a
#include linux
According to Ben Gertzfield:
I think both /etc/rcS.d/ and /etc/rc.boot/ have their place, and
I know personally that /etc/rc.boot/ is far more convenient for
non-packages that need to start up once on bootup and don't
want (or care) to know about update-rc.d.
Thoughts?
It sounds more like
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Ben Gertzfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm going through my old bug reports, and I remembered people
telling me /etc/rc.boot/ is obsolete. But I just went to look at
the new policy (I assume 3.0.0.0 is the latest) and it has the same
old stuff about /etc/rc.boot/ :
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+The files tt/var/run/utmp/tt, tt/var/log/wtmp/tt and
+tt/var/log/lastlog/tt should be installed writeable by group
+utmp. Programs who need to modify those files should be installed
+install
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Zack Weinberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joel Klecker wrote:
The main problem is that 2.0 kernels do not support sigaltstack(),
this causes such things as m4 to fail when run on a Linux 2.0 system
if it was compiled on a glibc 2.1 system using 2.2 kernel headers.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Daniel Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm actually surprised that there seem to be so few dfsg-free imapd
implementations - it certainly seems like something that's easier to
do than an smtp daemon, and goodness knows people don't tire of
reinventing that particular
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Brian White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't want a separate directory for Debian to use. I would like the
standard directory available for the webmaster to use. Think of
/cgi-lib/ as an equivalent to /usr/lib/ or /usr/bin/, and /cgi-bin/ as
an equivalent to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
sh script.sh is very different from running it in a subshell with ().
For example, bash doesn't really fork a new invocation - it just
sets up a new internal environment temporarily. It's
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*This is opinion*.
Okay ;)
I would not have expected the init.d scripts to be generally
sourced by rc, and woud be surprised not to have them regular
standalone scripts (I often call them manually, as in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So regular *.sh scripts must not contain any exit statement.
(which is the case e.g. for keymap.sh)
Ah, now I remember. This has been solved quite some time ago.
*.sh scripts may contain an exit statement, because they are
According to Martin Schulze:
Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So regular *.sh scripts must not contain any exit statement.
(which is the case e.g. for keymap.sh)
Ah, now I remember. This has been solved quite some
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In /etc/* there are severeal scripts that are named *.sh. Most of
them are not marked executable and don't contain a #! /bin/sh line.
Thus, to run them you need to sh foo.sh or source foo.sh them.
This raises a problem if the
we could pull this off and the rest would follow.
Now we're just going to be the dist with the weird paths.
If you want to fix something why not get rid of /usr/games? That's
something I've never quite understood.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
[EMAIL
everything in Linux has been modeled after those other
Unices and that is part of Linux's succes.
Also please check with the LSB (or whatever it is called today) guys
before making such an incompatible change.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED
be used to configure it ...
Chances are that a config module has even already been written.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | eventually eliminating it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble
Policy Manual is ofcourse also available as a debian package.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | awake all night wondering if there is a doG
42 matches
Mail list logo
