Quoting Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail-src
> Severity: important
> Tags: security
>
> Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large
> amounts (> 4 gb) of memory:
>
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/c
Quoting Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail-src
> Severity: important
> Tags: security
>
> Apparently qmail has some security bugs on 64 bit systems with large
> amounts (> 4 gb) of memory:
>
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2005-1515
> http://www.cve.mitre.org/c
I received the following wishlist bug today, and really like the idea.
My thoughts are to change the dependancies to allow ipsvd to be used in place of
ucspi-tcp and ucspi-tcp-src.
I'll need to do some "magic" to get the init.d file to work properly, but I can
just make that a build-time debconf
Quoting Tomas Hoger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi!
>
> > I think it is an FTBFS bug. The following should generally work:
> >
> > apt-get source qmail
> > cd qmail-*
> > dpkg-buildpackage
> >
> > For qmail, this does not work because of the missing Build-Depends on
> > groff-base and because of the mi
I am including a fix for the missing build-depends line in the control file.
However, I am not changing how the package presently handles creating the users.
qmail-src is not in the main package repository. It's in the non-free
repository, which, in reality, means it's not officially part of Deb
Do you have another location for that patch, or perhaps more information? I've
been unable to get to that URL, or find a different patch than the one
included.
Cheers!
Jon
---
This mail sent through Click2E-Mail http://www.click2e-mail
Quoting Elliott Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Sendmail definitely supports IPv6, and I strongly suspect Postfix does as
> well. This makes Qmail the unusual one in /not/ supportting IPv6. Given
> the increasing prevalence of support, I'd suggest either documenting the
> lack of support or includ
Quoting G A Craig Carey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: ucspi-tcp-src
> Version: 0.88-9
> Followup-For: Bug #57102
>
> After years of having "." at the start of the PATH, it
> eventually one problem can be discovered: the install of
> just this package fails.
I really don't understand how having
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Jon Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (21/12/2006):
> > Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Note also that once this is fixed, you should update the description of
> > > the qmail-src package.
&
Quoting Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: qmail
> Tags: patch
>
> Hi,
>
> qmail still creates a /usr/doc symlink. Since 2002, policy
> has not required these symlinks, and we're waiting for all packages
> to be updated to remove them before the /usr/share/doc transition can
> be comp
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't see any reason to close this bug. If you don't want to fix this
> issue, please tag it as wontfix.
>
> In order to have this bug fixed, I wrote a full patch. Here are my
> comments on the debconf templates, as the rest just depends on these
> f
Quoting Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Package: ucspi-tcp-src
> Version: 0.88-10
> Severity: normal
>
> While installing ucspi-tcp-src, my installation stopped with:
>
> To build ucspi-tcp binary package, you have to run
>
>build-ucspi-tcp
>
> Press ENTER to continue...
>
>
Quoting Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think you are letting your crankiness interfere with your logic. The
> people arguing that qmail is non-free are a different group than those
> that have anything to do with funding anything. If you can't adequately
> maintain the package, say so ins
Quoting Alex Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As others have said there is no need to compile the source when
> building a "source as binary" package. Hence there is no need to have
> depandancies on specific users when building the qmail-src deb from
> the qmail source deb.
>
> There are two ways of s
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Oh no, not him again", says Jon...:-)
>
> Actually, this contribution is less invasive and controversial than
> the former we had to deal with, I think.
>
> With the removal of debconf stuff, I think that #351394 can be closed
> as it becomes obvio
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into
qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the
qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have had several users ask for a version of
Package: wnppp
Severity: wishlist
I currently maintain the qmail-src package. I would like to fork qmail-src into
qmail-ldap-src as a separate package to handle Debian users who wish to use the
qmail-ldap patch from André Oppermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I have had several users ask for a version o
Quoting Nick Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Package: ucspi-tcp
Version: 0.88-9
Severity: important
Tags: patch
I rate this bug as Important, but if Paul does set a wildcard on
maps.vix.com as discussed then it could quickly escalate.
--
If we don't, some Debian users could lose email when
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> user debian-i18n@lists.debian.org
> usertag 388952 + no-cooperation
> thanks
>
>
> > I could argue my case with you, but I see no point in it. If you have gone
> > through all the trouble to do a massive bug posting against most likely
> > countles
Quoting Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 16:02:29 -0500, Jon Marler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > This bug is being closed as it is not a bug. It was a request from
> > a translator to make a change that I disagree with. As the packag
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> First of all, thank you, Jon, for giving me more input on the
> background of your reaction to this bug report.
>
> I was actually not asking for more and I regret that we went in this
> long argument.
>
> Please also note that this mail has been in
Quoting Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Well .. if notes are going away, that's something entirely different.
> >
> > I looked at the .config file in question, and I have three notes.
> >
> > I have a warning message that is marked as high, a message that tells the
> user
> > how to a
Thanks Christian!
I've been having trouble with my mail server lately and didn't get your email
on the 26th.
Thank you for sorting this out for me. I really appreciate it.
Cheers!
Jon
> Dear maintainer of qmail,
>
> On Thursday, January 26, 2012 I sent you a notice announcing my intent to
On Mar 3, 2008, at 11:15 AM, Luke Schierer wrote:
As qmail is now in the public domain, it should be possible to build a
binary-package of qmail and move it out of non-free. It would be nice
to see this happen.
Please look at old bug reports before reporting new bugs, as this bug
has been
Please see bug #457318.
Cheers!
Jon
On Nov 6, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Greg Price wrote:
Now that the author of this software has seen the light and made it
free software, it'd be great to have it in Debian.
Is there a particular obstacle known to be in the way of doing so,
or is just a matter of
I requested a merge of this bug with #457318
Gerrit Pape filed an ITP for qmail in Dec. of 2007. There is an
ongoing debate on how to handle qmail, and I suggest you look through
the maillist archives or the ITP bug report for more information.
Also, Gerritj has an excellent binary package
regarding
qmail-source not qmail. It also was not touched for some time now.
Hence, i filed this bug. Sure by all means close this bug. However,
you should note that this was a wishlist report and not a bug report,
as such
Does Gerrit intend to package qmail ?
2009/9/29 Jon Marler :
Well,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Adding TLS support would basically require every user to setup certs
just to get a base qmail system up and running. This would also mean
breaking existing configurations.
May users are using other mechanisms, such as stunnel, to provide SSL
and/or TLS encrypti
If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly.
Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling
fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the package
using a different syntax.
Not sure what you need done here.
Jon
On Jun 12, 2008, at
erity 485956 serious
thanks
On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 06:09:14PM -0500, Jon Marler wrote:
severity 485956 minor
Erm, no, this is a FTBFS bug, and deserves the severity I gave it.
The package fails to build with standard Debian tools, called in their
standard ways, and violates a policy MUST.
Pleas
On Aug 13, 2008, at 4:41 PM, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
Jon Marler wrote:
All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long
long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just
remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably
never
was in
On Jun 15, 2008, at 4:23 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008, Jon Marler wrote:
If you use fakeroot to call dpkg-buildpackage, it works prefectly.
Something is wrong with the way that dpkg-buildpackage is calling
fakeroot. The chown calls work perfect, and you can build the
Thanks for the report.
All of that inetd.conf stuff is old legacy code from a migration long
long ago before update-inetd was available. I believe I will just
remove it all together as it is no longer necessary, and probably
never was in the first place.
I have a release that I am prepar
Let's please not re-open that debacle. I was informed that Debconf
was specifically -*not*- to be used to preset information to users,
and had one of those spray-and-pray bugs filed against the package. I
ripped all of it out because there was no other solution. You can't
show it in debc
No problem.
I am working on a new release to fix the outstanding RC bugs, and will
get this fix in as well.
I am going to back out that link-sync patch. It's more trouble than
it's worth.
Cheers!
Jon
On Jul 28, 2008, at 3:18 PM, Pablo 'merKur' Kohan wrote:
I just started getting MANY
On Sep 13, 2008, at 10:03 AM, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.10.28
#patch didnt touch debian/rules
found 485956 qmail/1.03-46
Fixed in -47
Cheers!
Jon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Sep 13, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Carsten Hey wrote:
Package: ucspi-tcp-src
Severity: grave
Hi,
while checking whether bug #174353 "build-ucspi-tcp fails on libc6
2.3.1-7" is still present and if it is release critical - more
precisely, before I had the chance to do so, I tried to build
ucspi-tcp-
with Qmail, and there is nothing in Qmail that prevents IPV6 from
working.
Why have you reopened this bug?
Cheers!
Jon
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:15 PM, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> Processing commands for cont...@bugs.debian.org:
>
>> reopen 326415
> Bug #326415 {Done: Jon
Have you tested that this patch works? I don't have an IPV6 network to play
with.
Cheers!
Jon
On Mar 23, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> reopen 326415
> stop
>
>> From: ow...@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug Tracking System)
>> There are no TCP listeners in the qmail package. The TC
>Hello Jon,
>
>Have you been able to sort things out?
>
>if the FTBFS is #584745, I think the report is too incomplete for
>being properly processed. The bug submitter never followed up,
>also. I'd suggest tagging "moreinfo" and ignoring ATM.
It's a valid bug. It is super easy to reproduce ... ju
40 matches
Mail list logo
