On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What you meant to do was to run "make CC=gcc-2.95" instead of make. There
> > is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what
>
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:14:08 -0700
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from
> running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3.
Correction, 2.4.20. For some reason 2.4.21 seems to be crashing my system
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400
Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you meant to do was to run "make CC=gcc-2.95" instead of make. There
> is no need to futz around with the default gcc version; just ask for what
> you want.
Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:46:30PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Package: gcc-2.95
> Depends: gcc (>= 1:2.95.3-2)
>
> Package: gcc
> Version: 3:3.3-2
> ^^^
>
> I was having a hell of a time recently trying to compile 2.4.20 (machine's
> been flaking since an upgrade to 2.4.21) whic
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 12:11:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> And another thing : it seems that the pre-installed Debian he got was
> configured with both testing/unstable in the sources.list file. Pinning is
> not the easiest thing to catch when you are (alone) beginner with Debian...
It's al
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:55:34PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:03PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >Under this setup, when cron opens a crontab file, it should fstat() it and
> >check that it is owned by t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:03PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
>Under this setup, when cron opens a crontab file, it should fstat() it and
>check that it is owned by the uid under which its contents will be executed
>before trusting it.
I
Package: gcc-2.95
Depends: gcc (>= 1:2.95.3-2)
Package: gcc
Version: 3:3.3-2
^^^
I was having a hell of a time recently trying to compile 2.4.20 (machine's
been flaking since an upgrade to 2.4.21) which fails under GCC3.3. So I tried
compiling under 2.95 which was... 3.3. Final
At Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:54:56 +0200,
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> >> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> >> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compi
At Mon, 04 Aug 2003 15:54:56 +0200,
Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
> >> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> >> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compi
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:10:47AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> Which is why you mount NFS shares with the intr flag set so that you
> can at least kill it and restart it.
Which is broken on most Linux Kernels. So is soft.
Greetings
Bernd
--
(OO) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
( .. ) [EMAIL
unsuscribe
On Mon, 2003-08-04 at 22:12, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> I just found this, maybe aîuseful read
>
> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1060025253&count=1
>
"I used apt-get to get aptitude. I fired up aptitude."
The writer is obviously a moron if he did this with such ease and it
never occured to him h
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> I'm not sure that current distcc in unstable can support such configuration,
> but it should be really easy to add this support. In fact, as far as I can
> remember, it is mentioned in distcc documentation that machines that r
On Monday 04 August 2003 23:12, Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just found this, maybe aîuseful read
>
> http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1060025253&count=1
Unfortunately, his main problem is "Having not used Debian for about 8 years".
The strange thing is that he has been able to apt-get ins
> > If you want to be productive, how about setting a buildd and trying to
> > crosscompile the distribution and then post statsistics of
> > failed/succeeded crosscompilings?
> This is a good idea. Maybe I will try after my vacation. Is
> documentation/hints abould how to do it available anywhe
Hello,
I just found this, maybe aîuseful read
http://ln.hixie.ch/?start=1060025253&count=1
--
Nikolai Prokoschenko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2003-08-03 at 03:32, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Today I was reminded of something that causes apps not to migrate into
> sarge. When maintainers remove old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that doe
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>> Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterday. Basic idea:
>> mount the slow system's build chroot from the fast server, replace
>> gcc/g++/ld with scripts that call the server's version remotely. The
>> biggest pro
Hello people,
How do I pass dpkg-buildpackage options to pdebuild? I tried:
$ pdebuild --debbuildopts -v0.9.3claws96-1
To get dpkg-genchanges to consider more versions of the changelog,
but without success. Am I missing something? Is is a bug in pdebuild?
Thanks,
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gustavo
On Fri, 9 May 2003 16:25:46 +1000
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> These packages won't coexist.
>
> request-tracker depends on libcgi-pm-perl
> wwsympa depends on libcgi-fast-perl
> libcgi-pm-perl conflicts with libcgi-fast-perl
>
> It looks like this situation may not be resolvable of s
On 04-Aug-03, 12:42 (CDT), Adam Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > Uh, no. Changing the binary package name the way we've always
> > handled soname changes, except with a small number of very popular
> > libraries. It's a lot less work, and it does
On Monday 04 August 2003 19:08, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:27:38PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von
Bidder wrote:
> > > see, there's no lucidatypewriter ISO-10646 font, but I don't have all
> > > the packages installed.
> >
> > I have -b&h-lucidatypewriter-medium-r-no
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:42:27PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> And of the users? Please read the social contract.
I read it every day, just before bedtime.
Richard Braakman
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> > this case.
>
> Uh, no. Chan
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:07:56PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> > have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> > this ca
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> this case.
Uh, no. Changing the binary package name the way we've always
handle
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> In this case, libexif8 -> libexif9, this is a major soname bump, so should
> have required a new source package. The maintainer was probably derelict in
> this case.
The source package is libexif independently of the soname.
Are you su
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 05:27:38PM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder
wrote:
> > see, there's no lucidatypewriter ISO-10646 font, but I don't have all
> > the packages installed.
>
> I have -b&h-lucidatypewriter-medium-r-normal-sans-*-*-*-*-m-*-iso-10646-1
> with
> '36 names match' in
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-08-04
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libnet-imap-perl (Source package is actually called
libnetxap-perl following upstream)
Version : 0.02
Upstream Author : Kevin Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:33:59AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> > foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> > end of discussion? Or are we going to reall
Adam Heath wrote:
> Perhaps someone should write a script to detect these uninstallable issues,
> and notify the maintainers of the dependant packages when they occur.
Like [0]? (Not my work, but such a script certainly seems to exist.)
If done at all, probably a two (or something) day grace period
Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 03:55:41PM -0400, David Z Maze wrote:
>> Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
>> > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still de
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 11:58:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> As I have said before, I have no beef with programs being
> audited. My point, from the beginning, was that the proposal seemed
> to talk about consensus on the list, and seemed to state it was a bug
> not to have achieve
On Mon, 04 Aug 2003, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > | If libd1 is uploaded and only one of proga and libv0 is recompiled with
> > | libd1 this results in proga linked with both so-versions of the library.
> > | I remember problems with two so-versions of li
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Seriously, if we want to ever release sarge we are going to need to stop
> making libraries disappear, every time we rebuild something it takes
> another 10 days for it to migrate into testing and everything that
> depends on it is also pushed back another
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:04:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I can easily code an entry for katie and friends that takes a new
> package, and marks up the ones with setgid bits set -- and the ftp
> maintainers do not create override entries until they see a consensus
> develop, or the s
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include
> * LapTop006 [Sun, Aug 03 2003, 03:13:57PM]:
>
> > > IMHO we need to make an addition to policy stating that an old lib can
> > > not be removed from the archive until no other packages still depend on
> > > it.
> > How about old libraries can n
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into
> Debian unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the
> upload has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override
> file. I can easily code an entry for katie and fr
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:02:58PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Adrian Bunk
>
>
> [...]
>
> | If libd1 is uploaded and only one of proga and libv0 is recompiled with
> | libd1 this results in proga linked with both so-versions of the library.
> | I remember problems with two so-versions o
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Why do we need policy to tell us to do what you suggest are
> good, common sense things?
Oh come on. You honestly think there is common sense in this project? Not
everyone is as smart, brilliant, and perfect as you.
If there was common sense
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | If libd1 is uploaded and only one of proga and libv0 is recompiled with
> | libd1 this results in proga linked with both so-versions of the library.
> | I remember problems with two so-versions of libpng, later with
> | libssl0.9.6 and libssl0.9.7,
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> end of discussion? Or are we going to really need to look at the code
> to see if the setgidness can be worked
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, [iso-8859-2] Micha³Politowski wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 19:19:10 +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> [...]
> > From my investigations, I thought that the intended use of dpkg-statoverride
> > was by the local administrator, modifying the default suid/sgid and
> > ownership of the
As rightfully pointed out by Fumitoshi UKAI, this discussion belongs to
the wider audience of debian-devel, especially since Ruby 1.8.0 was
released today.
NB: some points raised here can be of interest not only to Ruby
developers, but also to developers from other scripting languages.
Generic que
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 03:54:56PM +0200, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterday. Basic idea:
> mount the slow system's build chroot from the fast server, replace
> gcc/g++/ld with scripts that call the server's version remotely. The
> biggest problem wil
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:18:37AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> Usually, you can use apt-cache showpkg libexif8 and send a message to
> every maintainer whose package depends on it, asking to rebuild against
> the new libexif9. When everyone has rebuilt against the new lib,
> then you can ask for
Andreas Rottmann wrote:
> I wonder why yehia isn't entering testing. According to [0] it makes
> qmailmrtg7 uninstallable, but qmailmrtg7 is totally unrelated to
> yehia, AFAICS.
>
> Regards, Andy
>
> [0] http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/testing.pl?package=yehia&expand=1
I've been on vacation, during
from vac import std.disclaimer
will be at the ccc camp from 7/8 'till end and then in amsterdam and
paris. beer and key exchange welcome. mail me for more data.
ciao,
federico
--
Federico Di Gregorio
Debian GNU/Linux Developer[EMAIL PROTECTED]
INIT.D Developer
Hi, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
>> kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
>
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastructure?
Surprise, I was thinking about the same thing, yesterda
* Adrian Bunk
[...]
| If libd1 is uploaded and only one of proga and libv0 is recompiled with
| libd1 this results in proga linked with both so-versions of the library.
| I remember problems with two so-versions of libpng, later with
| libssl0.9.6 and libssl0.9.7, and with libvorbis (at the ti
> On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> > > buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> >
> > By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> > cross-compiling infrastructure?
>
> I
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> Chris Cheney wrote:
> > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k buildd to rebuild
> > kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
>
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastruct
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:28:49PM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> > Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> > buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
> By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
> cross-compiling infrastructure?
Isn't it good ide
Hi Chris,
while reading throuch debian-devel archives I read your "libraries being
removed from the archive" mail.
There's at least one good reason why having several so-versions of a
library in unstable is usually a bad idea:
Inter-library dependencies open a _big_ range of sometimes hard to
> Today I was reminded of something that causes apps not to migrate into
> sarge. When maintainers remove old libraries from the archive! Today
> for example libexif8 was removed by Christophe Barbe and replaced by
> libexif9. Guess what that does... any package which depends on libexif8
> now b
> Guess how many hours it takes for the m68k
> buildd to rebuild kdegraphics. OVER 38 HOURS!
By the way, isn't it a good time to rise up a discussion about package
cross-compiling infrastructure?
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 08:33:31AM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I think a better approach would simply be to regard application
> > uninstallable-in-sid bugs as non-RC for testing purposes. Since the
> > testing scripts will already refuse to process new libs that rend
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:37:53AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I need help with:
> - classifying and forwarding upstream open bugs
> - eventually packaging the mutt CVS tree, as the author has not made any
> new snapshots in the last months
I could co-maintain mutt if only after sept the 5th. I
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 12:49:51PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote:
> Common sense says otherwise :) You see, before we had katie and the
> testing scripts, such removal of orphan libraries was done manually.
> ("orphan" because they no longer had a source package that built them).
> Our experience
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:08:04AM +0200, Jérôme Marant wrote:
> > Hence the need for policy to dictate to the maintainer not to allow the
> > package to be removed before all other packages have transitioned. It
> > usually doesn't take much more work as long as the maintainer is even
> > aware of
On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 16:10, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> | Also you don't want the main copy of cron to search auto-mounted user
> | home directories. If you do that then a failure of the NFS server will
> | put cron in "D" state...
>
> Which is why you mount NFS shares with the intr flag set so that yo
Quoting christophe barbe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ok, sorry for being rude in my previous mail.
>
> I understand the general problem that you are facing with KDE and
> will try in the future to announce upcomming soname changes.
>
> Concerning the removal, I don't really see the point of not remo
Quoting Chris Cheney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Old libraries are removed since only one version can exist in the same
> > distro branch to the same time. If the library maintainer decided not to
> > fork the source package but change the binary package name inside of
> > existing three then he does
Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think a better approach would simply be to regard application
> uninstallable-in-sid bugs as non-RC for testing purposes. Since the
> testing scripts will already refuse to process new libs that render
> applications uninstallable, the only impact here will be that certai
* Russell Coker
| Also you don't want the main copy of cron to search auto-mounted user home
| directories. If you do that then a failure of the NFS server will put cron
| in "D" state...
Which is why you mount NFS shares with the intr flag set so that you
can at least kill it and restart it.
* Manoj Srivastava
| Why do we need policy to tell us to do what you suggest are
| good, common sense things?
Because common sense isn't as common as it should be. Not even among
DDs. :(
--
Tollef Fog Heen,''`.
UNIX is user frien
* Kevin Kreamer
[...]
| Ok, I've done some thinking on this as well, and this is what I've
| come up with. I don't think making sure that the base directory is
| owned by root will protect you, as that would still allow an
| attacker to put a tmpdir in most system areas. What we really need
|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 23:52:57 -0400, Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> Policy can make it so that packages are not accepted into Debian
>> unless you hop through certain hoops. Like making sure the upload
>> has a signature. Or that it has an entry in the override fil
70 matches
Mail list logo
