On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 08:15:47PM +0200, Matthijs Mohlmann wrote:
PowerDNS has 3 serious issues (#321974, #326260 and #322352) which can
be updated in the next point release of Sarge. We fixed the issues that
still exists in Sarge and wanted to upload it to stable-proposed-updates.
We tried
Andreas Barth wrote:
4:3.3.2-6.2 seems to be in NEW? And is blocking kdegraphics below.
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote (privately):
But according to http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html it is in
t-p-u? And it's not shown in the PTS either?
And why would it need to go through NEW,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I've just been through the ntp source tree looking at all the
copyright and license assertions. Executive summary is that there are
indeed some problems, but it's not bad, and I believe it can be fixed
with an upload that elides certain bits from the upstream
Hi Joey,
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
Greetings
Martin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2005/9/15, Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 02:05:14PM -0600, Shaun Jackman wrote:
The package libswt-gtk3-jni 3.0-6 was built for every architecture
except powerpc. It seems the latter was a bit of an omission due to
the buildd not building the binary because a
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
Hi Joey,
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
From the first glance this looks like a wrong setting in the debconf db.
-- dpkg-reconfigure base-config with proper priorities
Regards,
Joey
--
Testing?
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 06:42:08PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
From the first glance this looks like a wrong setting in the debconf db.
-- dpkg-reconfigure base-config
On Sep 15, Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
copyright notice.
I do, and I stand by my opinion: the package license is intended to be
applied to everything, and pretending otherwise is useless pedantry.
--
ciao,
Marco D'Itri wrote:
No, maybe it's you who do not understand english, or probably just like
armchair lawyering.
Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
You apparenly don't understand the difference between a license and a
copyright notice. Actually, it's
quite possible the authors of NTP
Colin Watson wrote:
Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
please also update base-config.
#154482 is still valid for sarge, and is very annoying.
From the first glance this looks like a wrong setting in the debconf db.
-- dpkg-reconfigure base-config with proper priorities
(a) You
Bob Proulx [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are several files that are BSD with advertising clause, including
libntp/memmove.c, libntp/mktime.c, libntp/random.c, libntp/strerror.c,
libntp/strstr.c, ntpd/refclock_jupiter.c, and
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Please stop being rude when you're wrong.
Pot, kettle, black.
The general license is attached to *one copyright notice*, that for the
lead author.
If the license was clearly issued by more than one copyright holder
(which it's not), and the
In gmane.linux.debian.devel.release Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What are you going to replace it with? AFAIK, ntp is the only package
we have in Debian which supports useful clock synchronization, which is
essential for a number of other services (e.g., Kerberos).
Well, there is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, there is chrony, which is feature complete with ntp as far as I
can tell.
Except that it is not. NTP is hard, and attempts to make it simpler
probably are not feature-complete.
Even without the licensing issues, I would recommend chrony
anyway: chrony converges
14 matches
Mail list logo
