On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 08:51:25PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
> > > these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobb
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, thomas lakofski wrote:
>
> I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
> these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
There is nothing wrong with making things easier. Simplicity
is an important technical value. B
On Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 03:25:17PM -0600, Adam Heath wrote:
> These 'pkgs' will have to remain in the system forever. If someone skips
> slink, and goes to potato when that is released, the same problem will occur.
We have to get rid of old practices at some point. We do not need to make the
sa
I'm trying to package wmsysmon.app -- but I'm not sure about the .app that
*some* wmaker apps get -- I'm not sure if I should have the package as
wmsysmon.app or just wmsysmon.
The tarball is wmsysmon.app, but the binary that gets built is wmsysmon.
I built an (undocumented) manpage for wmsysmon.
Hi,
About a month ago a developer posted that he had a special boot disk
image in his debian.org home directory to alleviate a hang at install
time, but I can't locate the post now.
Does anyone know the URL?
--
David
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Why are we going to this trouble? If you want to rename package a1 to a2,
> simply make a2 conflict and replace a1 -- dselect or dpkg will do
> the rest. If you want to make 'upgrade' automatic, then you'll also
> need to upload a new version of the a1
Raul Miller wrote:
> Policy should be rather broad in scope and concise in expression.
Amen.
--
see shy jo
On 23-Jan-99, 14:11 (CST), Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
> > going to use them?
>
> That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
> unless t
Previously Anthony Fok wrote:
> Unfortunately, the suggestion "chown root.floppy" and "chmod [12]754"
> won't work either because fdmount.c has this check in it:
>
> if (geteuid()!=0)
> die("Must run with EUID=root");
You wouldn't believe how many programs have a check like this and s
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> > I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all
> > references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages.
> > As the Packages file is the "weak link" in the distri
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you're biting your own tail here. Where do you get that "good"
> checksum?
Any place which is acceptable to the package maintainer -- perhaps out
of a pgp signed archive.
If the package maintainer can't produce a trustable package, it
doesn't matter ho
> Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
> > signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
> > exportable. And which requires a "chain of trust" to evaluate
> > whether to trust the key used to sign the
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
> > these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
>
> In the context of initial installation, I think it's lazi
If you want to now what this talk is all about, I have put a
preliminary Zope package on
http://master.debian.org/~flight/zope/. The dependencies are not yet
in place (you need python-base, python-pcgi and a few other python-*
packages), the Debian instructions are very rough, but you might get
it
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Raul Miller wrote:
> (
> until dpkg --remove xfntwhatever; do
> sleep 120
> done >/var/tmp/removexfntwhatever.log 2>&1 &
> )
OK.
We have three solutions suggested now:
a) dummy packages (and live with them)
b) dummy packages, which self-remove
c)
On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 06:34:27PM -0500, Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH wrote:
> (config.guess rant: *why* the exact processor ID? About half of configure
> scripts fall over in ECE Linux builds because they don't expect "i686".
> This should be "x86". And if it has to be exact, where are AMD and
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
> these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
In the context of initial installation, I think it's laziness -- a
refusal to examine problems.
That said,
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
> going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested invocations are read-only). I suppose the trivial
implementation wou
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 07:14:35PM +, thomas lakofski wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
> Can some focus be brought to getting there with similar ease? I've
> been with Debian for over 2 years now and would be sad to have to
> abandon it in the long run because of 'we don't do
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
> Please don't let's start *this* kind of discussion yet again. It's
> *not* about appeasing to the masses of unskilled consumers. It's
> about increasing ease of installation, use and maintenance. Skilled
> people definitely benefit from such time saving
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Steve Shorter wrote:
> Since when has the purpose of debian been to appease the
> interests of the mass of unskilled consumers? There are lots of dists
> that are trying to do that. I'm sure they will do a good job of
> introducing newbies to Linux. But I never thought
> This means that we're willing to hold off on upgrades to all font packages
> until the relevant apt support for package renaming is ready.
>
> I just hope the rest of the world agrees that this is wise.
it's not. i'm new here, so i'm not sure if this is an old topoic or not, but
debian distribut
On 23 Jan 1999, Paul Seelig wrote:
> and annoyances they'd have with Debian. They won't care about
> Debian's rather unaccessable technical superiority if the installation
> hinders them from getting the beast at least easily up and running and
> will recommend SuSE to the rest of the world. Tha
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 04:10:52PM +0100, Paul Seelig wrote:
> The first thing a future Debian entrepreneur interested in financial
> success would have to address would be to fix all those things which
> we Debian propeller heads have preferred to mostly neglect up until
> now: ease of install an
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
> signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
> exportable. And which requires a "chain of trust" to evaluate
> whether to trust the key used to sign the checksum.
> It supports strong encryption but is exportable from
> the US because it does not have encryption compiled in by default. Instead
> it downloads the scripts it needs from South Africa when it runs for the
> first time.
This is *extremely* risky behavior.
FTP and HTTP sites *are* compromised.
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:03:55PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Avery Pennarun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
> > version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
> > actually put off solving this pr
Avery Pennarun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
> version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
> actually put off solving this problem until Debian 2.2, and even longer if
> the X fonts don't change.
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:18:51PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Still, it is advisable to install the renamed versions of these packages
> > as soon as is convenient, in the event that their contents do change in
> > the future.
>
> This would just postpone the problem until there is a real di
[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like
the best message for me to respond to.]
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is: What needs to be policy?
>
> Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop
> programs that tie the system to
BSMTP mailer for Sendmail completely written in C
This package supplies a new "mailer" to sendmail, which allows to use
batched SMTP a protocol. BSMTP is used in UUCP environments and
allows to transport many mails as a (compressed) batch instead of
transporting every single mail. So bsmtp i
Hi there,
I am trying to draw attention to what I think is an important piece of
software - Mirrordir. It supports strong encryption but is exportable from
the US because it does not have encryption compiled in by default. Instead
it downloads the scripts it needs from South Africa when it runs f
On Sat, 23 Jan 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> > > > > I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
> > > >
> > > > Me too We could call it gnuice :-)
> > >
> > > I would have to bop you then... => But it would be under a
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 10:23:51AM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> > > > I'm all for it! How about it, anyone else interested? :)
> > >
> > > Me too We could call it gnuice :-)
> >
> > I would have to bop you then... => But it would be under a free
> > software type license, probably GPL or LGPL r
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> >
> > > > Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
> > > > sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
> > > > free license and avail
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:24:28PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
>
> > > Why do I get the idea I should bring up once again my hope to gather a
> > > sizable group of people to build a game system which is released under
> > > free license and available to anyone with a web browser and the like? =>
>
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 04:30:45PM +0100, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> > > > As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
> > > > program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so
> > > > we
> > > > could just enter the data, and either save it to a fi
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:22:58PM +, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> > > As well, my roommate and I were going to also make a character sheet
> > > program (hence the reason for making the rolldice stuff a library), so we
> > > could just enter the data, and either save it to a file or go ahead and
> > >
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:48:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> (BTW: TANSTAAFL was Larry Niven, not Heinlein IIRC)
Heinlein, "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", I thought. Actually I never
read it but it was a favourite of some people in the local
FidoNet region a few years back (as Craig might reme
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> Try looking at http://www.debian.org/logo (or logos)
>
Thanks!
It looks like a) the license is expired and b) it doesn't apply to Gnome
anyway because Gnome is not clearly "half Debian related." Though arguably
we're talking about .deb packages rath
Hi again,
> 2.0.x maxes out at 2^30-2^26 = 1006632960 bytes, or 960MB, of RAM.
>
> Thus, you'll wanna use "mem=960M".
>
> You can also adjust some headers (I forget which) to expand the kernel
> memory / virtual memory split (it is adjustable, and it defaults to 1GB/3GB).
Can the 2.1/2.2 kernel
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> Kernels are big. Even if you don't pay for download time, many people
> do.
---end quoted text---
That's what dselect is for...you only download that which you
are going to install. By adding the 2.2.0 kernel and or source
as an extr
Hi Robert,
> # dd if=resc1440.bin of=/dev/fd0
> # mount -t msdos /dev/fd0 /mnt
> # cd /mnt
> # rm linux
> # cp /place/i/have/my/working/kernel linux
> # ./rdev.sh
> # cd /
> # umount /mnt
>
> Yes, the rdev.sh script does require that you mount the disk on /mnt.
>
> Make sure your rescue disk con
Ossama Othman wrote:
>The machines both have two Adaptec 7890 and one Adaptec 7860 SCSI chipsets
>installed. Each machine also has a gigabyte of memory and four Intel
>Pentium II Xeons installed. In order to get RedHat to work we had to fool
>the kernel into thinking that it had less than a gig o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Try looking at http://www.debian.org/logo (or logos)
On 22-Jan-99 Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Gnome ships with icons for different kinds of files, and right now .deb
> packages have the Debian logo as icon. I've been asked to make sure this
> is OK from
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 11:36:23AM +0100, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I was thinking of the following packages:
>
> isdnutils contains the basic isdnctrl, ipppd stuff needed for networking
> isdnmonitoring isdnlog, imon, xisdnload, ... that sort of thing
> isdndocs the faqs and other docs
>
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:02:52PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > No. We had enough problems upgrading from 2.0.35 to 2.0.36. This would
> > be a major change and have corresponding reprocussions. I'm sure it's
> > very stable, but it will have incompati
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 12:48:47PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> Pournelle's even worse. in partnership with Niven he writes some great
> stories. take the politics with a large grain of salt, though. Must
> admit I like the "Think of it as evolution in action" phrase, though i
> use it in contex
Hi,
I am having some real problems booting the current boot disks for potato
on my Dell PowerEdge 6300 server system. The problem appears to occur
when the rescue disk kernels probes for hardware. Everytime it begins to
probe for SCSI hardware the machine just dies. I lose video signal and I
en
Allan M. Wind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
> Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
> with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 10:38:54AM +0100, J.H.M. Dassen wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 20:26:12 +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > i mostly agree but wouldn't put it anywhere near that strongly.
>
> I would. Ben's phrasing strongly reminds me of Robert A. Heinlein;
> especially of the concept of TA
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>
>--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 09:39:18AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
>>=20
>> The only thing my proposal changed was the UID and the GID of the web
>> se
Hi
Ship's Log, Lt. Tom Lees, Stardate 210199.2014:
>
> The password is "anonymous". Generate it like this:-
>
> echo 'main(){printf("%s\n",crypt("password","tL"));}'>t.c; \
> gcc -o t t.c -lcrypt; ./t; rm t t.c
I'd say perl -e 'print crypt("passwd","tL")."\n"' is much shorter :)
Greeting
Hey all. I'm kind of new around here (in the devel list), but I have
been using Debian for a while, and I want to contribute. I'm not much
of a C coder or anything, but I can whack Perl with the rest of them.
Anyway, getting to the point, I took a little and coded a Funge
interpreter in Per
On Fri, 22 Jan 1999, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> I should have made it clear that my intent was to find any and all
> references, that could not be satisfied in the supplied set of packages.
> As the Packages file is the "weak link" in the distribution method, I
> decided to interrogate the actual pack
First I want to thank everyone for their replies.
Second I want to appologize for my incorrect phrasing of the subject line.
Several people have pointed out that there are very nice packages that
deal with dependencies, while others pointed out that the other "or"ed
elements satisfied the depende
Brian White wrote:
> Actually, when I wrote that message we were talking about an image package.
Aha! Well I agree with it WRT images.
--
see shy jo
> > Disclamers are of marginal use. It will appear as installable and tell
> > people to "install me" just as an elevator buttun tells people "push me".
>
> Installing a kernel 2.2 source package just dumps a tar file in /usr/src. I
> don't see how this could break a system. Actually building and
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 02:05:26PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > in any case, i don't see it as a problem. IMO, the fact that they have
> > different package names is USEFUL information. it tells me that there's
> > something possibly weird or dangerous going on and i should be extra
> > careful be
On Fri, Jan 22, 1999 at 07:18:08PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> Yup. I don't have any worries about that. My small concern is people
> expecting it to be supported because it came with the distribution. As
> I've said, I don't have very strong convictions about a source package.
As I said sever
> > > > Including the source package I could be convinced of. At least then
> > > > people have to think about what they're doing before causing potential
> > > > problems.
> > >
> > > This "think about what they are doing" thing is precisely one of the
> > > reasons the "extra" priority does exis
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 10:01:17PM -0500, Brian White wrote:
> > Would anyone object if kernel 2.2 were packaged up at least as a
> > kernel-source package for slink? 2.0.3x would remain slink's default
> > kernel
>
> Not that it matters, really. My only worry is that if somebody compiles
> the k
62 matches
Mail list logo
