Package: ax25-util
Version: 0.28.0-2.deb
I tried numerous ways (including recompiling) to get axattach to load
but each time it returned with the error message
SIOCSIFHWADDR: Invalid argument
When I removed the slip module from /etc/modules, I was then able to
load axattach without errors. Howev
JUST FYI ftp load should return to normal soon.. read attached message.
(meaning when this goes out the door then I will not be in their list
anymore.)
--
Matthew S. Bailey
107 Emmons Hall
Central Michigan University
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Forwarded message --
> Christian Linhart hasn't updated ical in a while so I took the liberty
> of doing so.
Thanks for updating ical. I've very hard time constraints and
an important deadline, so I won't be able to do much for Debian
until April or May. :-(
Thus I am very happy if somebody takes over some of my pa
I lost the reference, but someone said that System.map/psdatabase are
obsoleted by /proc/ksyms in more recent kernels.
I didn't know exactly then, so I checked it at home. This
simply isn't true. ksyms holds a lot less information (only those
symbols as generated by genksyms, not all symbols from
Richard Kettlewell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>I think the absence of a revision number is a good indicator of Debian
> specific packages anyway.
But is that what it indicates? Might it not also indicate that the
package developer uses debian linux as his base, and he just chose
not to assign a
> > > The way I see this working, architecture-specific maintainers with
> > > the ability to address architecture-specific bug reports and do
> > > architecture-specific testing would feed architecture-specific
> > > fixes and patches to the primary package maintainer. Primary
> > > package maint
Raul Miller:
> I think this is a bug in the debian packaging mechanisms.
Ian Jackson:
Well, I could change dpkg so that it would barf in this situation,
rather than going ahead and removing the files from the earlier
package, but I think that would have been less helpful.
How about th
I've noticed that many (if not all) shared libraries exist under the
"devel" section. I agree that the development versions (i.e. lib-dev files)
should be there, but I think the shared ones should be placed elsewhere.
I could see someone excluding the entire "devel" section for a machine
on which
Hi,
Ian Jackson wrote:
> As Matt Bailey suggests, I think separate Incoming directories is a
> better solution.
I'm from the m68k section, and although it's kind of you to set up the
directories for our uploads, I believe the main development of Debian/m68k
is going to be done with the german ft
> > How about
> > <= => for less/greater than or equal to
> Ok
> > << >> for strictly less/greater thani
> Ok
> > < > for less/greater than or equal to (backwards compatibility,
> > generates warning from dpkg-deb)
> Ok but an fatal error from dpkg-deb would be better than just a warn
>* Someone said that we don't need to parse the version number out of
>the filenames. They were wrong. dftp and the dselect FTP method need
>to know the version numbers of packages they're thinking about
>downloading, so that incremental upgrades don't have to fetch all the
>selected packages but
I've updated mkpackages so that it puts the size in bytes and MD5
checksum of the files in the Packages files.
I didn't put them in the same field because it seemed silly for
programs and humans to have to parse the contents of a field into two
essentially unrelated pieces of information, and beca
Package: mbr
priority: required
section: base
maintainer: Bruce Perens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
version: 1.0.0 1.0.0
Bad "version:" string.
Brian
( [EMAIL PROTECTED] )
---
>We should require a revision number for Debian packages. Imagine someone
>forgets to remove -g in the Makefile and doesn't strip the executable, or
>some other oversight happens. You need a revision number to distinguish
>an oversight-fix release.
If that were to happen to the upstream package
Bill Mitchell writes:
Bill> Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
Ian> * dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a
Ian> revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and
Ian> confusing.
[...]
Bill> I'm not religious on this issue, but I'd pre
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in a magnificent manifestation of deity, wrote:
>In principle this sounds like a good idea. I don't have a strong
>opinion on whether Optional should be included in the `distribution'.
I think that it should be a part of the distribution (on the cd), it
just gives
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> There are a couple of things I want to set people straight on, in this
> area:
>
> * dpkg and other packages written especially for Debian don't have a
> revision number because a revision number would be meaningless and
> confusing. The most recent guidel
The following problem reports have not yet been marked as `taken up' by a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or or `forwarded' by a
message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OVER 10 MONTHS OLD - ATTENTION IS REQUIRED:
Ref PackageKeywords/Subject Package maintainer
416 wenglish perl doesn't fl
>
> Erick Branderhorst writes ("Bug#2059: dpkg and depend on versions"):
> > Package: dpkg
> > Version: 1.0.8
> >
> > I installed the man package (2.3.10-6) succesfully. After that I tried
> > to upgrade the libgdbm1 package (1.7.3-8). During installation of
> > libgdbm1 dpkg reports about libgdbm1
> How about
> <= => for less/greater than or equal to
Ok
> << >> for strictly less/greater thani
Ok
> < > for less/greater than or equal to (backwards compatibility,
> generates warning from dpkg-deb)
Ok but an fatal error from dpkg-deb would be better than just a warning.
> = fo
Manoj Srivastava writes ("dist-3.60-3 uploaded to ftp.debian.org"):
> * Use /etc/news/organization instead of /etc/organization
>Please note that people who installed mailagent-3.44-1
>and/or dist-3.60-2 shall have to remove /etc/organization
>manually a
While thinking about this problem over the Christmas break I have come
to the conclusion that we do not have to change the filenames so that
we can recover the package name and version information from them.
Programs can use the Packages file to avoid downloading files that
they know they don't wa
Raul Miller writes ("Re: Bug#1995: run-parts on laptops"):
> Ian Jackson:
>Perhaps savelog should be moved into another package, then ?
>
> This seems like a very good idea.
miscutils is probably the right one.
Ian.
Package: dvipsk
Version: 5.58f
I obtained the sources from ftp.debian.org within the 0.93R6 directory tree,
and tried to recompile simply using the command:
debian.rules build
The first thing that had to be fixed was to go and fetch the kpathsea
sources, since one can't compile dvipsk unless one
David H. Silber writes ("Bug#2080: cern-httpd or dpkg leaves log files after
purge."):
> Package: cern-httpd -or- dpkg
> Version: ??? 1.0.7
>
> After purging cern-httpd from my system, the log files remained.
The logfiles will be created by the package, so dpkg doesn't know
anything a
Ian Jackson wrote:
>Note that < means less-than-or-equal-to in this context.
Could dpkg also support using <= for this meaning please? (Or does it
already?) Having to write < to mean <= is far from optimal; I think
it's something we should aim to get away from at some point.
--
Richard Kettlew
Marek Michalkiewicz writes ("Bug#2091: creating packages requires root
privileges"):
> To create a binary *.deb package, root privileges are required. This
> is because you must create a complete directory structure with proper
> ownerships and permissions first, and then use dpkg-deb to create
>
Matthew Bailey writes ("Re: FTP site performance low"):
> [...]
> Well netscape corp screwed me with politics and listed me in their mirror
> listings. Well there used to be more mirrors but it seems that we are one
> of three listed now. And until beta 5 or release version are out I can
> not g
(Gigantic crosspost trimmed.)
Raul Miller writes ("Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories"):
> It does look like dvips was superceeded by some other package, and
> that it did originally have some executables in it. [All I have on my
> system from dvips is a copyright statement and some .t
Michael Alan Dorman writes ("Bug#2081: named does not start"):
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jean-Marc Bourguet w
> rites:
> >PS=`ps -p $PID 2>/dev/null| tail -1 | grep named`
>
> You might want to make this
>
> PS=`ps -p $PID 2>/dev/null| tail -1 | grep named | grep -v grep`
>
> so that it doe
Ian Murdock writes ("Too much information! (And what to do about it.)"):
> With all of the new developers that are joining the Project and the
> number of new packages that are resulting from their involvement, it's
> becoming increasingly difficult, especially for newer users who aren't
> exactly
Michael K. Johnson writes ("Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories "):
> Ian Murdock writes:
> [...] ther have to have separate Incoming directories for all
> >supported architectures, or we'll have to have a naming scheme for all
> >Incoming binary packages (prepending a dash and the archit
Chris Fearnley writes:
> '[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:'
> >I had moaned about this weeks ago. You have to manually delete dvips after
> >installing dvipsk, xdvi after xdvik etc. A "Conflicts:" in debian.control
> >might have helped here. Or a new "Replaces:" field.
>
> Yes, this seems to me a good ide
Erick Branderhorst writes ("Bug#2059: dpkg and depend on versions"):
> Package: dpkg
> Version: 1.0.8
>
> I installed the man package (2.3.10-6) succesfully. After that I tried
> to upgrade the libgdbm1 package (1.7.3-8). During installation of
> libgdbm1 dpkg reports about libgdbm1 conflicting wit
Erick Branderhorst writes ("Bug#2060: dpkg and depends on version again"):
> [...] The ">" character is misleading and in practice it is
> interpretated by dpkg as ">=". I would suggest to change the syntax
> used in Depends/Conflict/Provides/Recommends/Suggest fields into a
> more intuitive way
(Crosspost to -alpha and -sparc removed.)
Bill Mitchell writes ("Re: binary-alpha and binary-sparc directories"):
> It seems that the Guidelines document needs updating to address
> issues falling out of this.
>
> One issue is whether binary packages are to be distinguished by
> distribution-spec
Miquel van Smoorenburg writes ("apache"):
> Well, my views on this are:
> o a /var/httpd/htdocs for the documents
> Remember apache can be a server for multiple domains. That's why
> we need a 2-level directory structure; you might get
> /var/httpd/htdocs-customer2
> /var/httpd/htdocs-custo
Sven Rudolph writes ("Re: Buglist"):
> Some suggestions for the bug reporting system:
> - It is possible to mark a message quiet in order to get it not echoed
> at debian-devel. Is there a way to make answers to it be not echoed
> too ? (e.g. by introducing a debian-bugs-quiet alias)
Tha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
XFree86 (3.1.2); priority=LOW
Package: (various)
Version: 3.1.2
Package_Revision: (various)
Maintainer: Stephen Early <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
These are minor updates to some of the X packages. xlib and xdevel now
depend on ldso >1.7.14-1 to fix the problem with .so
Robert Leslie writes ("Re: New ftp method for dselect"):
> > Exceptions: (the ones I saw, anyway)
> > stable/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA24-1.deb
> > debian-1.0/binary/net/bind-4.9.3-BETA26-2.deb
>
> If there are no objections I think I will rename the next version of the bind
> package to
Hi,
I just uploaded mailagent-3.44-2 to ftp.debian.org. From the
changes file:
Date: 05 Jan 96 08:02 UT
Source: mailagent
Binary: mailagent
Version: 3.44-2
Description:
mailagent: An automatic mail-processing tool
Priority: Low
Changes:
* Use /etc/news/organization inste
Hi,
I've just uploaded dist-3.60-3 to ftp.debian.org. From the
changes file:
Date: 05 Jan 96 06:55 UT
Source: dist
Binary: dist
Version: 3.60-3
Description:
dist: Tools for developing, maintaining and distributing software.
Priority: Low
Changes:
* Use /etc/news/organizat
Package: xntp
Version: 3.4x-2
/etc/init.d/xntpd doesn't check for the presence of /usr/sbin/xntpd
before trying to start itself.
Darren
43 matches
Mail list logo
