* Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) wrote:
> On Sep 14, "brian m. carlson" wrote:
>
> > I suspect that those figures are because 2048 bits is the default size
> > for RSA keys and 4096 bits is the largest size that GnuPG supports.
> FWIW, the OpenPGP smartcard v2 supports keys up to 3072 bits.
>
Man
Dear all Web masters
I have near *300good *quality in all theme sites with less obl Doing *
3way* linkexchange..
plz add this chat id: *...@yesyeeoh.com*
* Hector Oron , 2010-09-15, 21:26:
c) allow build depends on source packages, which it is probably a worst idea.
On the contrary, I think that allowing source packages to be installable
in the same way as binary packages is an excellent idea. Imagine you can
do:
apt-get install src:linux-2
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:57:25AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:41:49 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > > On 14/09/10 01:18, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > > - Your new key should be signed by two or more other Debian
To whom it may concern:
We wanted to bring to your attention that WifiAccess.com is available for
sale.
Please contact me with any questions you have regarding this sale.
Best Regards,
Toby Clements
Partner
+1.615.944.3501
RickLatona.com | Latonas.com | DigiPawn.com | DigiLoan.com | ccTLDs.c
On Wed, Sep 15 2010, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> As for the large keysize, it is seen as too large. It was recommended
> that Debian should try to do something that would help reduce the
> overall threat to the Debian PKI instead of promoting very large key
> sizes *in order to acommodat
* Bernhard R. Link | 2010-09-15 17:05:05 [+0200]:
>Or is there no lintian
>run for buildd (i.e. unsourcefull) uploads yet?
[0] says
"Those automated rejects will only be done on sourceful uploads to
unstable and experimental."
So I would say no, there isn't.
[0] http://ftp-master.debian.org/#r
Dear developers,
ABSTRACT
How to enable in some special cases a way to allow one source
package have multiple maintainers within Debian archive.
RATIONALE
There are already a number of packages in the archive which ship
sources in a binary package, in some cases this is very useful, so
withou
]] Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
| I just wondering where I am supposed to find a good smartcard that can
| take 2048R (or larger) keys, works well with gnupg, and for how much :)
http://shop.kernelconcepts.de/product_info.php?cPath=1_26&products_id=42
does 3072 bit keys and are quite reasonably p
On 09/15/2010 06:33 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
>>> IMO, you should try to get yourself better acquinted with quilt before
>>> using it, or you can end up with a mess.
>>
>> Right. That's why I am testing this process while upstream only produ
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches quilt push
>
> will do the same. You only need QUILT_PATCHES for the first quilt call.
Is that so? That would be good news, but it doesn't match my
experience... although the last time I tried that was some months
Christoph Egger writes:
> Giuseppe Sacco writes:
>> here it fails with message "No patches in series" because it doesn't
>> look for debian/patches/series but only for patches/series.
>
> export QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches
Actually not needed.
Just type "debuild" or "dpkg-buildpackage". It wi
Giuseppe Sacco writes:
> here it fails with message "No patches in series" because it doesn't
> look for debian/patches/series but only for patches/series.
export QUILT_PATCHES=debian/patches
--
9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731
Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer
A
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 03:14:48PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 15, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > > I would like to know the process which lead to selecting these
> > > figures.
> > Apparently, just like many other things in the project: the folks
> > doing the work (and appointed for this b
On 2010-09-15 12:34:46 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Sep 14, "brian m. carlson" wrote:
> > > I suspect that those figures are because 2048 bits is the default size
> > > for RSA keys and 4096 bits is the largest size that GnuPG supports
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> > IMO, you should try to get yourself better acquinted with quilt before
> > using it, or you can end up with a mess.
>
> Right. That's why I am testing this process while upstream only produced
> and rc version.
I've found that using dpkg-source forma
Il giorno mer, 15/09/2010 alle 13.14 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
ha scritto:
[...]
> "man quilt" explains it all.
thanks
> IMO, you should try to get yourself better acquinted with quilt before
> using it, or you can end up with a mess.
Right. That's why I am testing this process while up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 09/15/2010 11:58 AM, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
>
> here it fails with message "No patches in series" because it doesn't
> look for debian/patches/series but only for patches/series.
>
See section 3.1 of the New Maintainers Guide.
Regards,
- --
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Giuseppe Sacco wrote:
> here it fails with message "No patches in series" because it doesn't
> look for debian/patches/series but only for patches/series.
You have to set the QUILT_PATCHES environment variable or tell quilt where
to find the patches through its config file.
"
Hi all, I have recently packaged hylafax 6.0.4-10 using quilt. Now I am
moving to a new upstream release 6.0.5 and I am trying to update my
package following
http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/ch-update.en.html#s-newupstream
but I failed to it properly.
What I do:
1. untar new upstream release
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:41:49 -0300 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > On 14/09/10 01:18, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > > - Your new key should be signed by two or more other Debian
> > > Developers
> >
> > The NM and DM processes require only one signatur
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> On 14/09/10 01:18, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > - Your new key should be signed by two or more other Debian Developers
>
> The NM and DM processes require only one signature. Why is it harder to
> replace a key than to become a DD?
Or rather, why the require
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 14, "brian m. carlson" wrote:
> > I suspect that those figures are because 2048 bits is the default size
> > for RSA keys and 4096 bits is the largest size that GnuPG supports.
> FWIW, the OpenPGP smartcard v2 supports keys up to 3072 bits.
Hmm, t
On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 15, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > > I would like to know the process which lead to selecting these figures.
> > Apparently, just like many other things in the project: the folks
> > doing the work (and appointed for this by the project through the D
* Bernhard R. Link , 2010-09-15, 17:05:
As this is not really a new problem and easy to check for, I'm more
surprised that is not yet catched by lintian.
It is: package-contains-info-dir-file. And it's even on ftp-master's
autoreject list.
--
Jakub Wilk
signature.asc
Description: Digital s
On 14/09/10 01:18, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> - Your new key should be signed by two or more other Debian Developers
The NM and DM processes require only one signature. Why is it harder to
replace a key than to become a DD?
--
Saludos,
Felipe Sateler
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signa
On Sep 14, "brian m. carlson" wrote:
> I suspect that those figures are because 2048 bits is the default size
> for RSA keys and 4096 bits is the largest size that GnuPG supports.
FWIW, the OpenPGP smartcard v2 supports keys up to 3072 bits.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital s
* Ian Jackson [100915 15:54]:
> Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info
> is installed"):
> > Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> > policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> > no longer cle
On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:56:50 + "brian m. carlson"
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 09:59:16AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Sep 14, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> >
> > > pushing Debian towards adopting stronger RSA keys - We have
> > > accepted some 2048R keys, but if you don't have a real reason
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info
is installed"):
> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do
On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 15:14 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> I suppose that this was not the result of cargo cult engineering, so if
> these new recommended key values have been selected as the result of a
> process I am curious to know the rationale which lead to the choice.
> It really looks like a s
On Sep 15, Christian PERRIER wrote:
> > I would like to know the process which lead to selecting these figures.
> Apparently, just like many other things in the project: the folks
> doing the work (and appointed for this by the project through the DPL)
> examine the situation, make plans and deci
* Peter Samuelson | 2010-09-14 16:19:54 [-0500]:
>
>[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]
>> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
>> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
>> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do not).
>
>Wh
Christian PERRIER schrieb:
>> I would like to know the process which lead to selecting these figures.
>
> Apparently, just like many other things in the project: the folks
> doing the work (and appointed for this by the project through the DPL)
> examine the situation, make plans and decisions and
Bernhard R. Link writes ("Re: /usr/share/info/dir.gz if install-info is
installed"):
> Packages not building in a real environment is a serious problem for our
> infrastructure. Having some extremely special build environment for your
> software betrays one of the most important principles of free
* Sebastian Andrzej Siewior [100914 13:45]:
> Sounds reasonable. However sometimes package maintainer argueue that the
> policy says "clean build environment" and having package X intalled is
> no longer clean (thus I have a problem and buildds do not).
A package more installed is not a unclean b
Jakub Wilk writes:
> * Goswin von Brederlow , 2010-09-11, 19:46:
>> Because you are a reportbug novice. Novices are not allowed to play
>> with severity of bugs. :)
>
> I consider this a horrible misfeature of reportbug. Yes, we need RC
> bugs from novices, too.
>
> --
> Jakub Wilk
I like the m
37 matches
Mail list logo
