Alerts for uploads to stable-proposed-updates and tpu

[Florian Weimer]

Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
testing-propposed-updates?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Alerts for uploads to stable-proposed-updates and tpu

[Andreas Barth]

* Florian Weimer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070401 11:00]:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?

For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED] For
proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval, but I'm
not sure (it would be debian-changes@lists.debian.org).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Alerts for uploads to stable-proposed-updates and tpu

[Loïc Minier]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Is there some kind of mailing list I can subscribe to, to receive
> alerts when someone uploads a package to stable-proposed-updates or
> testing-propposed-updates?

 debian-testing-changes will show upload to TPU, such as xmms
 1:1.2.10+20061101-1etch1:
 
 and this is before it migrates to testing:
  xmms | 1:1.2.10+20061101-1 |   testing | source, alpha, amd64, arm, 
hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc
  xmms | 1:1.2.10+20061101-1etch1 | testing-proposed-updates | source, 
alpha, arm, hppa, i386, m68k, mips, powerpc

 Upon acceptance, you'll see them in the migration summary mails such as
 avscan 1.1.2-openssl-1etch1:
 

 I don't know where one can subscribe to TPU uploads; it seems to me
 debian-changes@ gets messages when the packages are accepted in stable
 only.

-- 
Loïc Minier


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Alerts for uploads to stable-proposed-updates and tpu

[Florian Weimer]

* Andreas Barth:

> For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

Ah, thanks.  Pretty obvious in retrospect.

> For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@lists.debian.org).

Mail after approval is good enough for my purposes, thanks.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Bug#417031: ITP: liblatex-tom-perl -- A module for parsing, analyzing and manipulating latex documents

[Patrick Winnertz]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Patrick Winnertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

* Package name: liblatex-tom-perl
  Version : 0.6
  Upstream Author : Steven Schubiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : 
http://search.cpan.org/~schubiger/LaTeX-TOM-0.6/lib/LaTeX/TOM.pm
* License : self, written, see below for details
  Programming Lang: Perl
  Description : A module for parsing, analyzing and manipulating latex 
documents

 This module provides a parser which parses and interprets (though not fully)
 LaTeX documents and returns a tree-based representation of what it finds.
 This tree is a LaTeX::TOM::Tree. The tree contains LaTeX::TOM:Node nodes.
 .
 This module should be especially useful to anyone who wants to do processing
 of LaTeX documents that requires extraction of plain-text information, or
 altering of the plain-text components (or alternatively, the math-text
 components).

--License: 
Copyright (c) 2002 Aaron Krowne

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
"Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included
in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT,
TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE
SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
---

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Alerts for uploads to stable-proposed-updates and tpu

[Martin Zobel-Helas]

Hi, 

On Sun Apr 01, 2007 at 11:37:06 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Andreas Barth:
> 
> > For t-p-u, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> Ah, thanks.  Pretty obvious in retrospect.
> 
> > For proposed-updates, I fear the mails are only sent upon approval,
> > but I'm not sure (it would be debian-changes@lists.debian.org).
Packages approved by SRM are currently not producing a mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED], but i am currently working on a fix for that.

Greetings 
Martin

-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] /root]# man real-life
No manual entry for real-life


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Ethernet interface numbering in etch

[Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 10:24:26AM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > I disagree. Not only because the bug is not RC, but because you could say
> > the same for users running other virtualization technologies (UML? Vmware?)
> > with similar behaviours.
> 
> Do they behave in the same way?

Well, not the same way, but udev will interfere in this scenarios:

 - Uml assigns MAC addresses automatically so MAC address will depend on when
   the interface was started and whether it was configured before it was
   started. In any case MAC addresses change when the interface is 'up'ped
   (from '00:00:00:00:00:00' to something else) or connected to different
   uml-switches (without changing the UML machine itself). You
   can staticly assign them, however,
   See http://edeca.net/articles/bridging/questions.html#macproblems2

 - Vmware can be used to run linux already installed in a local hard disk
   (instead of using a virtual disk). In this case, the MAC address given by
   Vmware for its bridged network interfaces (sharing the system's network
   interfaces with the host) will be within Vmware's assigned OID MAC
   addresses, which is different from the network interface's MAC address
   when the system boots (without virtualization) and uses the real network
   interface directly.
   There might be some other situations in which MAC addresses change
   (changing an interface from bridged-mode to host-only or so), but are more
   similar to the device renaming in udev when ethernet cards are removed
   or replaced.

- When you "move around" a Vmware virtual image (to a different host or to
  a different directory, or clone it) MAC addresses might also change:
  http://www.vmware.com/support/ws55/doc/ws_net_advanced_mac_address.html
  and
  http://kb.vmware.com/KanisaPlatform/Publishing/476/507_f.SAL_Public.html

  Google for "mac address vmware udev" and you'll find many users having
  problems with udev in these cases. For example
  http://www.vmware.com/community/thread.jspa?threadID=46069&tstart=0
  (go down the thread and you will see comments about people cloning Debian
  systems)


Regards

Javier


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#417057: ITP: brouette -- Monitoring applet for prelude

[Pierre Chifflier]

Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Pierre Chifflier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


* Package name: brouette
  Version : 0.1
  Upstream Author : Sébastien Tricaud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.wallinfire.net/brouette/
* License : GPL
  Programming Lang: C
  Description : Monitoring applet for prelude

Brouette is an event displayer for prelude manager. Registered as a prelude
sensor, it displays events using libnotify to display passive pop-up
notifications on security alerts.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 4.0
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Shell:  /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Kernel: Linux 2.6.18vz
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL 
set to fr_FR.UTF-8)

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Michal Čihař]

Hello

On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was
>  not signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
>  the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll point
>  it out in the next CFV.

It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature 
won't verify, because I deleted the votes):

[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/vote$ gpg --decrypt mail > decrypted

You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: "Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
2048-bit ELG-E key, ID 05C78623, created 2004-01-10 (main key ID 36E75604)

gpg: encrypted with ELG-E key, ID 43C42E9B
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit ELG-E key, ID 05C78623, created 2004-01-10
  "Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/vote$ cat decrypted 
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Sig_RW14tDhEezNYBYqzBFPkcVG;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=PGP-SHA1

--Sig_RW14tDhEezNYBYqzBFPkcVG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

> - - -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-
> e0acebd2-71f1-4df8-ae4d-50355ad7aa81
> [   ] Choice 1: Wouter Verhelst
> [   ] Choice 2: Aigars Mahinovs
> [   ] Choice 3: Gustavo Franco
> [   ] Choice 4: Sam Hocevar
> [   ] Choice 5: Steve McIntyre
> [   ] Choice 6: Rapha=C3=ABl Hertzog
> [   ] Choice 7: Anthony Towns
> [   ] Choice 8: Simon Richter
> [   ] Choice 9: None Of The Above
> - - -=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D- Don't Delete Anything Between These Lines =3D-=
=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-=3D-

--=20
Michal =C4=8Ciha=C5=99 | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com

--Sig_RW14tDhEezNYBYqzBFPkcVG
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFGCMIx3DVS6DbnVgQRAtJlAKDoXjrx49GJ2zTSP1PZt2CVcpo6fACglVXk
VMIjrLiaxHRdJj3wHqjGjDU=
=JGT1
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

--Sig_RW14tDhEezNYBYqzBFPkcVG--


-- 
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Steinar H. Gunderson]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature 
> won't verify, because I deleted the votes):

You had your message signed, then put the signature into a separate MIME
part and then finally encrypted the whole kaboodle? Does that make any sense?

/* Steinar */
- who obviously does not know PGP/MIME very well
-- 
Homepage: http://www.sesse.net/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Michal Čihař]

Hello

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:15:40 +0200
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 06:11:38PM +0200, Michal Čihař wrote:
> > It of course was signed, I simply don't know what went wrong, but it
> > seems that something fooled script which is handling votes (signature 
> > won't verify, because I deleted the votes):
> 
> You had your message signed, then put the signature into a separate MIME
> part and then finally encrypted the whole kaboodle? Does that make any sense?

Well it did Claws mail for me and I didn't investigate this. I also
didn't have problem with signed and encrypted mails so far. And why it
wouldn't make sense? Or I have to use inline PGP when encrypting?

-- 
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Manoj Srivastava]

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was not
>> signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
>> the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll point
>> it out in the next CFV.

> It of course was signed,

No, it was not. The body of the encrypted but not signed email
 contained a signed vote, but the email itself was not signed.

> I simply don't know what went wrong, but it seems that something
> fooled script which is handling votes (signature won't verify,
> because I deleted the votes):

I do know what went wrong.

This is the most creative and weird action I have seen in the
 last few elections.

You send an encrypted mail, which was not itself signed. This
 caused the vote to be rejected. Now, the body of the mail, once you
 decrypted it, did contain a signed vote -- but this is too late,
 since the outer mail was not signed, nothing processed the decrypted
 body.

And no, you do not need to send in inline PGP when encrypting
 ballots;  you can send a signed *AND* encrypted RFC 3156 mail
 message.

manoj
-- 
Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue. Seneca
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Michal Čihař]

Hi

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:04:12 -0500
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> This is the most creative and weird action I have seen in the
>  last few elections.
> 
> You send an encrypted mail, which was not itself signed. This
>  caused the vote to be rejected. Now, the body of the mail, once you
>  decrypted it, did contain a signed vote -- but this is too late,
>  since the outer mail was not signed, nothing processed the decrypted
>  body.
> 
> And no, you do not need to send in inline PGP when encrypting
>  ballots;  you can send a signed *AND* encrypted RFC 3156 mail
>  message.

Maybe I read RFC 3156 wrong, but I think it says exactly what I sent:

6.1.  RFC 1847 Encapsulation

   In [2], it is stated that the data is first signed as a
   multipart/signature body, and then encrypted to form the final
   multipart/encrypted body.  This is most useful for standard MIME-
   compliant message forwarding.

-- 
Michal Čihař | http://cihar.com | http://blog.cihar.com


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Steve Langasek]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:04:12PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 18:11:38 +0200, Michal Čihař <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: 

> > Hello On Fri, 30 Mar 2007 11:02:49 -0500
> > Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> >> It turns out that it was indeed encrypted, but the message was not
> >> signed; which means there is no information about who is sending
> >> the ballot. This is a legitimate addition to the ballot; I'll point
> >> it out in the next CFV.

> > It of course was signed,

> No, it was not. The body of the encrypted but not signed email
>  contained a signed vote, but the email itself was not signed.

Hrm, is there really an RFC that specifies encryption before signing?  That
would violate the expectation that people other than the intended recipient
of the mail should not be able to verify the source.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe that's 
> what you were thinking about.

AFAIK, they are.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Pierre THIERRY]

Scribit Steve Langasek dies 01/04/2007 hora 13:09:
> Hrm, is there really an RFC that specifies encryption before signing?

AFAIK, the RFC specifies how to build an encrypted MIME body and a
signed body. When you want both, you can either store a signed body in
the encrypted one, or an encrypted and signed PGP data as an encrypted
body...

> That would violate the expectation that people other than the intended
> recipient of the mail should not be able to verify the source.

Which provides you with repudiability for non-recipients, which can be
an expectation too.

Differently,
Pierre
-- 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OpenPGP 0xD9D50D8A


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Ethernet interface numbering in etch

[Brian May]

> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Russell> For the rare case of a Xen instance with multiple
Russell> Ethernet devices it would be easy to modify the config
Russell> file in question - which is actually an easier task than
Russell> determining how to correctly manage MAC addresses.

I use static MAC addresses for all my Xen hosts, and believe this is
the recommended practise by Xen upstream.
-- 
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Announcing the Smith Review Project: proofreading English in Debian packages texts

[Mike Hommey]

On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 07:37:47PM +0200, Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.
> 
> Project presentation
> 
> This work is intended to continue all through the etch->lenny release
> cycle and beyond. Its purpose is to review all English texts
> associated with Debian packages, namely debconf templates, manual
> pages and package descriptions.
> 
> The project is named Smith because every nice project must have a name
> and Smith is a commonly accepted "common name" for people in
> English-speaking parts of the world. It also opens possibilities to
> play on words with "blacksmith", "wordsmith" and the like.  The project also
> has a three-letter acronym name (SRP) which is mandatory in Free
> Software projects.
> 
> 
> Projects tasks and schedule
> ---
(...)

What about putting standardisation of descriptions and package names in
these, too ?

http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/02/msg00125.html

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Announcing the Smith Review Project: proofreading English in Debian packages texts

[Christian Perrier]

> What about putting standardisation of descriptions and package names in
> these, too ?
> 
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/02/msg00125.html


Descriptions is part of the game but we might need people with ideas
in that area to join in.

For package names, I'm unsure: this has technical consequences and
deeply interferes with the maintainer's work.

That should probably be left to ITP bug reports but I'd really be glad
to be proven wrong..:)







signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: many rejects (Re: Second call for votes for the debian project leader election 2007)

[Adrian von Bidder]

On Sunday 01 April 2007 23:19, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Apr 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> > IIRC signing subkeys are not accepted at package uploads, so maybe
> > that's what you were thinking about.
>
> AFAIK, they are.

Policy URLs are not accepted, that's what I was thinking about.  I use 
signing subkeys and usually a policy URL, so I just remembered that I have 
to take special steps before signing packages.  Sorry about the confusion.

cheers
-- vbi

-- 
You will be awarded some great honor.


pgpxvKOyqFFFP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Announcing the Smith Review Project: proofreading English in Debian packages texts

[Christian Perrier]

> Please welcome the Smith Review Project to the galaxy of Debian projects.

As I keep getting mails saying that this is "a good one", I need to 
send this disclaimer:

Despite the date, this project is definitely *not* a joke. I'm really
sorry that April 1st is a Sunday, the day where I have time to
complete such things..:-)

This project is serious and has already started. See tagged bugs [1]
or the debian-l10n-english mailing list archives [2]

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=debconf-rewrite;[EMAIL 
PROTECTED];ordering=tracked

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-l10n-english





signature.asc
Description: Digital signature