at the boot prompt.
A straightforward case. As well as complicating the terminology I'm
consistently putting quotes around the names of the levels.
(Meanwhile, appendix/chroot-install.xml talks about priorities but
means somet
2009/8/25 Frans Pop :
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
>> Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
>> > On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Agustin Martin wrote:
>> > > I am about to ask dictionaries-common priority be changed to
>> > > optional in the override file. Also, ispell maintain
Christian Perrier wrote:
> Task: standard
> Section: user
> Description: Standard system utilities
> This task sets up a basic user environment, providing a reasonably
> small selection of services and tools usable on the command line.
> Packages: standard
> Test-new-install: mark skip
>
> I ass
(CC Joey to draw attention on this thread)
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> Can you do that? I thought standard was exclusively a dynamic task that is
> based on package priority alone.
Yes, I can do it (a bug report might help being sure to not forget in
case we don't converge very soo
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> > On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Agustin Martin wrote:
> > > I am about to ask dictionaries-common priority be changed to
> > > optional in the override file. Also, ispell maintainer has also
> > > uploaded i
Quoting Frans Pop (elen...@planet.nl):
> On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Agustin Martin wrote:
> > I am about to ask dictionaries-common priority be changed to optional
> > in the override file. Also, ispell maintainer has also uploaded ispell,
> > iamerican and ibritish with optional priority (not yet
On Tuesday 25 August 2009, Agustin Martin wrote:
> I am about to ask dictionaries-common priority be changed to optional
> in the override file. Also, ispell maintainer has also uploaded ispell,
> iamerican and ibritish with optional priority (not yet changed in the
> override file).
>
> Are those
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 09:00:04PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > For that reason I suggest that ispell, iamerican and ibritish entries
> > be modified *right now* to be optional instead of standard. wbritish
> > seems to be already optional.
>
> For most languages tasksel will automatically install
Hello All,
dpkg-buildpackage warns about missing Priority: fields in the control
file. I guessed priority "optional" is ok for libdebconfclient0 and
libdebconfclient-dev.
Thiemo
Index: tools/cdebconf/debian/control
===
RCS file: /
Steinar H. Gunderson wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:43:41PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > Debian-cd procudes CDs for woody which contain udebs.
>
> s/woody/sarge/
>
> > In that case, busybox-cvs-udeb was incorrectly included on the cd
>
> s/busybox-cvs-udeb/busybox-udeb/
Finger macros, sorry
On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 02:43:41PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Debian-cd procudes CDs for woody which contain udebs.
s/woody/sarge/
> In that case, busybox-cvs-udeb was incorrectly included on the cd
s/busybox-cvs-udeb/busybox-udeb/
Apart from that, I fully agree with the bug report.
/* Steinar
Package: debian-cd
Severity: grave
Debian-cd procudes CDs for woody which contain udebs. The packages files
for these udebs have prioties that do not match the priorities listed in
the Packages files in the debian archive. Since the debian installer
uses these priorities to decide what usbs to
Why do we have so tight priorities? Do the magnitudes matter, I thought
it was only about ordering?
I was thinking, why not go down the BASIC road and change 1,2,3... to
10,20,30... so we can easily say "damn, we need THIS too" without having
to change the priorities of everything e
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
> J.A. Bezemer wrote:
>
> > What about making a few task-* packages standard and have tasksel pre-select
> > them by default? (I.e. start with [X] instead of [ ])
>
> That's not a bad idea.
>
> > Another thing: will it still be _easy_ to install a small s
J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> > It might be useful to be able to get these sorts of things back using a
> > 'unix-servers' task or similar.
Implemented now btw.
> What about making a few task-* packages standard and have tasksel pre-select
> them by default? (I.e. start with [X] instead of [ ])
That's
On Fri, 18 May 2001, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
> > should not be:
> > fingerd not very secure for baseline
> > ftpd not very secure for baseli
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
> should not be:
> fingerd not very secure for baseline
> ftpd not very secure for baseline
> talk rather obsolete, but debatable
>
Previously Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
> proof of it. And talk is rwxr-xr-x, so what would you win by an
> overflow on a local host? And I doubt that there are many bugs in a
> daemon which is less than 10k big.
Security works the
On 05/15/2001 09:28:37 AM tfheen wrote:
>> You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
>> proof of it. And talk is rwxr-xr-x, so what would you win by an
>> overflow on a local host? And I doubt that there are many bugs in a
>> daemon which is less than 10k big.
Perhaps
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:28:37PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> You are assuming that talkd have buffer overflows, but you have no
> proof of it.
Of course a reasonably paranoid person would assume that buffer
overflows exist and mitigate the risk as appropriate. Unless you can
*prove* that
* "Vince Mulhollon"
| On 05/15/2001 08:00:09 AM exa wrote:
|
| >> What about closing all the ports by default? The user can open them by
| >> himself if he wants to anyway. Security fans would really be happy then.
|
| Still have the vulnerable, exploitable binaries. All you have to do it get
On 05/15/2001 08:00:09 AM exa wrote:
>> What about closing all the ports by default? The user can open them by
>> himself if he wants to anyway. Security fans would really be happy then.
Still have the vulnerable, exploitable binaries. All you have to do it get
root and open the "talkd" ports
On Tue, May 15, 2001 at 04:00:09PM +0300, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> I sometimes have the feeling that too much security is breaking many
> convenient features. It would be wrong to put in a program with known
> vulnerabilities, but except that I don't see why you would want to
> remove useful sm
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
> * Michael Stone
>
> | On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > | > talk rather obsolete, but debatable
> | > | > talkd not very secure for baseline
> | >
> | > I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are
Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most popular
> ones. More importantly, we need an editor in the b-f that everyone can
> use easily without having to know emacs, vi or any other editor.
The first thing I involuntarily discovered in vi was
* Michael Stone
| On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:16:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > IMHO, a system without talk and talkd is too limited. Have it only
| > listen on loopback, if security is the problem.
|
| That's YHO. I obviously disagree. :)
:)
| I haven't used talk in years, and you co
what's the alternative, voting? :-)
(seriously, I use talk regularly - "securely" even: two people ssh to
a common machine, and run talk there :-) I'd probably be happy with
any equivalent user-to-user real-time messaging tool, but "write" is
kind of gross, and everything else seems to try to be
On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 03:16:53PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> IMHO, a system without talk and talkd is too limited. Have it only
> listen on loopback, if security is the problem.
That's YHO. I obviously disagree. :) I haven't used talk in years, and
you could probably find a large number of
* Michael Stone
| On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > | > talk rather obsolete, but debatable
| > | > talkd not very secure for baseline
| >
| > I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are no security
| > problems with talkd.
|
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:08:17PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | > talk rather obsolete, but debatable
> | > talkd not very secure for baseline
>
> I want those. They are very useful, and afaik, there are no security
> problems with talkd.
This is about you, it's about
Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> `standard'
> These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
> character-mode system. This is what will install by default if
> the user doesn't select anything else. It doesn't include many
>
Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > rcs few use it
> replace it with cvs
rcs and cvs solve very different problems. They are by no means
equivalent, and I use both, and I know lots of people who use both on a
While I agree there aren't that many people who use RCS directly, it
is certainly one of those things I expect to be on a Unix system as a
basic tool.
I think you may break the expectations of people coming from other operating systems
if you don't make RCS standard.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On May 12, Adam Di Carlo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> vacation why standard?
Because it fits the definition of "standard". Actually I think it fits
the definition of "important" too, where it says "If the expectation is
that an experienced Unix person who found it missing would say `What
t
> replacement for ae, which I think is a very good idea; nano is
> *self-documenting*, which is the key feature for an editor we want to be
> useful for all users.
zile is self-documenting too.
> I also don't think you'll get very far in trying to prove that most people on
> d-d use emacs.
I kn
On Sat, 12 May 2001, Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> > "Bastian" == Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [1 ]
> > On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >> aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
> > what do you think to inclu
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> > Another argument is that zile is "kind of" a stripped-down version of
> > Emacs, and Emacs is the standard editor for the GNU system, which I am
> > sure most of the people on this list are
On 12 May 2001, Peter Korsgaard wrote:
> > "Wolfgang" == Wolfgang Sourdeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny
> >> for boot-floopies?
>
> Wolfgang> I am just experiencing zile and I find it quite good. And,
> Wolfgang> btw,
Bastian Blank wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> > aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
>
> what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
> boot-floopies?
>
The editor for boot floppies does
You people are missing the point.
I don't care if exim stays or not! I don't care who thinks what is a
good editor! I wasn't asking for discussion on my list -- I was just
throwing out the list to show there are things there which MUST not be
standard (ftpd, telnetd). That no body had really
WA> postfix does not do IPv6
WA> postfix does not do TLS (not officialy and juding by comments on
WA>#debian-devel from today not reliably either)
Recently there was released new stable version of postfix. It does
support TLS. AFAIK it doesn't support IPV6 out of box right now. There
is exis
On 12 May 2001, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> libident why? not used by other std package, pidentd
> rblcheck why standard?
These are used by exim IIRC.
Simon
--
GPG public key available from http://phobos.fs.tum.de/pgp/Simon.Richter.asc
Fingerprint: DC26 EB8D 1F35 4F44 2934 7583
I'm a simple user,
I think after install Debian base, switch from exim to
postfix is just a matter of apt-get install!
Regards, Paulo Henrique
Quoting Wichert Akkerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Previously Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> > http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
>
> >From
Previously Jacob Kuntz wrote:
> http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
>From what I hear:
postfix does not do IPv6
postfix does not do TLS (not officialy and juding by comments on
#debian-devel from today not reliably either)
postfix header rewriting isn't flexible
postfix uses multiple files
from the secret journal of Drew Parsons ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Just for education's sake, what are the reasons you hold this opinion?
>
> I use exim simply because it came standard. I'd like to know why postfix is
> better.
>
http://www.postfix.org/motivation.html
Postfix is a little bigger o
Previously Sami Haahtinen wrote:
> how does something become standard?
> - Someone has to make new standards, why shouldn't it be us.
There have to be good reasons to switch though. smail used to be
our standard, but exim was clearly a better choice: it was a lot
easier to configure and perform
On Sun, May 13, 2001 at 12:42:01AM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> >
> > Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
> > should not be:
> > exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
>
> Just for educat
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> Here's a provisional list of packages which are standard or higher and
> should not be:
> exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Just for education's sake, what are the reasons you hold this opinion?
I use exim simply b
* Bastian Blank
| On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
| > aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
|
| what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
| boot-floopies?
nano-tiny
This has been decided alreay, p
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 01:13:54PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most popular
> ones. More importantly, we need an editor in the b-f that everyone can
> use easily without having to know emacs, vi or any other editor.
I seem to hav
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Whilst I agree with you on all the others. postfix is 3 times the size
of exim, and a fraction harder to configure. (This isn't meant as
flamebait.)
--
Paul Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Previously Wolfgang Sourdeau wrote:
> Another argument is that zile is "kind of" a stripped-down version of
> Emacs, and Emacs is the standard editor for the GNU system, which I am
> sure most of the people on this list are using.
Emacs is not `the standard editor', it is just one of the two most
> "Wolfgang" == Wolfgang Sourdeau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny
>> for boot-floopies?
Wolfgang> I am just experiencing zile and I find it quite good. And,
Wolfgang> btw, it is meant primarily for boot floppies. Another
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
> character-mode system.
> exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Exim seems to be smaller and easier to configure.
> vacation why s
> "Bastian" == Bastian Blank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [1 ]
> On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>> aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
> what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
> boot-floopi
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 11:33:30AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > rblcheck why standard?
>
> exim use this? i don't know
There would be a dependency between them if it did.
> mtoolsonly usefull for dos users
Considering of the number of DOS-formatted floppy disk
On Sat, May 12, 2001 at 03:46:13AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> aenot used as basic editor anymore, everyone seems to hate it
what do you think to include as basic editor? vim? and elvis-tiny for
boot-floopies?
> setserial rather inappropriate for non-i386, AFAIK
also it is
Previously Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
FWIW, I disagree, and I'ld like to see some really good arguments before
we make a change like that.
Wichert.
--
/ Generally uninteresting sign
On Sat, 12 May 2001 03:46:13 -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> exim we should move to postfix, IMHO
Let's not go over this again, but why change at all if it is
working ok? We should all have better things than to worry
about such things.
-ako
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECT
Woody installation (via boot-floppies, base-config, tasksel, apt) will
change from Potato in that, normally, all packages marked as standard
will be marked for installation.
Citing Policy:
`standard'
These packages provide a reasonably small but not too limited
characte
Buddha Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> if the task-* packages are intended solely for the
> purview of tasksel, why put them in the main
> Packages.gz file? Why not distribute the dependency
> information as part of the tasksel package?
Because that's a huge pain in the butt, doesn't scale,
23 Oct 2000 08:15:07 -0400,
on Re: Priorities,
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think the task-* packages can be solved pretty easily with some
> guidelines like:
>
> Task packages can define different levels of installation. The
> tasksel pro
On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 10:34:54AM -0400, Robert Funnell wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
>
> > ...
> > Task packages can define different levels of installation. The
> > tasksel program will follow these rules for each case:
> >
> > - Minimum, installs everything tha
On Mon, 23 Oct 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> ...
> Task packages can define different levels of installation. The
> tasksel program will follow these rules for each case:
>
> - Minimum, installs everything that the task-* package Depends on
> - Standard, installs everything
>
> Now, there are some related problems happening. One big one is the
> fact that "Recommends" and "Suggests" have lost their usefulness
> since apt-get came on the scene. I venture to suggest that several of
> the inappropriate task-* packages exist purely to remedy this. If,
> e.g., the Rox
At 11:39 AM 10/19/00 -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
>On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:46:36AM -0400, Deephanphongs, David wrote:
>
> > If task packages can provide choice, why not let them? The
> > task-gnome-desktop (or something like that) package was helpful to
> > me when I wanted to install gnome, sin
On Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 10:46:36AM -0400, Deephanphongs, David wrote:
> If task packages can provide choice, why not let them? The
> task-gnome-desktop (or something like that) package was helpful to
> me when I wanted to install gnome, since it's made up of
> half-a-dozen packages.
Yes, but th
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:06:58PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> Yes, task-webserver-roxen should not exist. I have written about this
> before. "I want a web server" is a suitable task, "I want web server
> foo" is not.
I think the problem we're seeing is this: the 'task-' package
namespace is mag
Joey Hess wrote:
> Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > doc
> > - eh?? i have to go out of my way to get "General documentation"??
>
> I think I agree with all of these. We should file bugs to get them
> removed.
I don't understand. If you remove task-doc from the list of task
packages that use
Anthony Towns wrote:
> I don't really understand task packages. I'd assume that they're there
> to make it easy for people to do some particular common tasks (setup a
> desktop environment, interact with your computer in japanese, play music,
> do 3d graphics, program).
Right. Have you done a pot
debian-boot: This is diverging into a discussion of task- packages. It's
probably reasonable to keep discussion on -policy rather than duplicate it
on both lists, I guess.
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:56:15PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> As far as "mutliple preferred packages", my intent is that
71 matches
Mail list logo
