On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 10:59:14AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:52:13PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 02:56:46PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> ...
> > > What I'm saying is that to must have a mail-ser
Hello!
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 01:52:13PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 02:56:46PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
...
> > What I'm saying is that to must have a mail-server install, even if it is
> > just ssmtp or something like that.
>
> Yes,
On Sun, Aug 25, 2002 at 02:56:46PM +1000, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 10:10:24PM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > El sáb, 24-08-2002 a las 17:28, Martijn van Oosterhout escribió:
> > ...
> > > > Proposal: By default no MTA will be installed.
> > >
> > > Um
On Mon, 2002-08-26 at 17:57, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > Both problems can be solved by simply writing the version scripts so
> > that only a version tag is mentioned in each:
> > libpng2.ver:
> > LIBPNG_2.0 {global: png_*);
> >
> > libpng3.ve
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> Both problems can be solved by simply writing the version scripts so
> that only a version tag is mentioned in each:
> libpng2.ver:
> LIBPNG_2.0 {global: png_*);
>
> libpng3.ver:
> LIBPNG_3.0 {global: png_*);
>
> However, we'll still get a warning messa
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:11, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> Otherwise, if more then one version of the symbol is
> available, none of the definitions is accepted and the search
> continues with the next
On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 10:10:24PM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> Hello!
>
> El sáb, 24-08-2002 a las 17:28, Martijn van Oosterhout escribió:
> ...
> > > Proposal: By default no MTA will be installed.
> >
> > Umm, this may sound silly, but how will you do local delivery if there is no
> > MTA insta
Hello!
El sáb, 24-08-2002 a las 17:28, Martijn van Oosterhout escribió:
...
> > Proposal: By default no MTA will be installed.
>
> Umm, this may sound silly, but how will you do local delivery if there is no
> MTA installed?
...
Not silly. MDA's like procmail can do local delivery standalone.
O
On Fri, Aug 23, 2002 at 07:08:31PM -0600, Georg Lehner wrote:
> El jue, 22-08-2002 a las 12:47, Roland Bauerschmidt escribió:
> ...
> - Opcional MTA's:
>
> Not every system uses an MTA, in fact a wealth of end-user PC's (the
> mayority) would be just fine with local delivery, and eventually
> util
On Sat, 24 Aug 2002, Brian May wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:13:47PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Now, apps often want libsasl2. ldap uses libsasl1. nss segfaults. It is
> > the same libdb2/libdb3 hell we had a while back.
>
> This sounds very similar to breakage that can
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 02:13:47PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Now, apps often want libsasl2. ldap uses libsasl1. nss segfaults. It is
> the same libdb2/libdb3 hell we had a while back.
This sounds very similar to breakage that can occur when with
MIT vs Heimdal libraries.
eg. i
El jue, 22-08-2002 a las 12:47, Roland Bauerschmidt escribió:
...
> How about moving postfix to priority important and exim to optional? :)
> LDAP support in postfix is already split off into a separate package.
...
I planned to start an elaborate proposal for the mailing-subsystem,
however real-l
On Thu, 22 Aug 2002, Panu A Kalliokoski wrote:
> If "versioned symbols" means including the versions of the dependencies
> in the SONAME, the biggest drawback I see is that it using it will
Nothing of the sort. It stores the soname of the library along with its
symbols, which then become known as
Tore Anderson wrote:
> As far as I know, exim is the only package with priority: important that
> depend on libldap2. Howevery, the basic configuration generated by exim's
> postinst doesn't use the LDAP functionality (AFAIK). So, I think exim
> should be fixed so that it doesn't depend on libldap2
David Pashley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As the main person in #exim on OPN, I've seen several people ask
> about exim with mysql or postgres support. There is a bug about
> having mysql support in exim in debian. (Wouldn't it be nice to have
> voting in debbugs?). I realise that exim does not
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 07:11:52PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > This is an another problem that would be easily and compatibly solved by
> > my ELF extension (until the library gets properly fixed upstream).
> Yes and no. Versioned symbol
Both problems can be solved by simply writing the version scripts so
that only a version tag is mentioned in each:
libpng2.ver:
LIBPNG_2.0 {global: png_*);
libpng3.ver:
LIBPNG_3.0 {global: png_*);
However, we'll still get a warning message if versioned binaries are
used with unversioned libraries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 21 August 2002 2:57 pm, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> > in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
Yes, unfortunately that situation triggers an assert... what a great
feature :(
So apart from the need to remove the unversioned-uses-versioned error,
we also to produce unversioned binaries.
The simplest way to this is is IMHO to add a /usr/lib/dev directory and
make it the first directory searc
I forgot to consider what happens when a Debian-built versioned binary
is used with a non-Debian no-versioned library.
Here is Drepper's explanation:
The last case is if the object with the references uses symbol
versions but the object with the definitions has none. In this case a
matching symbo
On Thu, 2002-08-22 at 00:11, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> > This is an another problem that would be easily and compatibly solved by
> > my ELF extension (until the library gets properly fixed upstream).
>
> Yes and no. Versioned symbols are here
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Luca Barbieri wrote:
> This is an another problem that would be easily and compatibly solved by
> my ELF extension (until the library gets properly fixed upstream).
Yes and no. Versioned symbols are here NOW and can be used NOW, and they fix
the issue cleanly without drawbacks
On Wed, 2002-08-21 at 19:13, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > Just explain why it is the right thing to do. And I would like to stay
> > binary compatible with RedHat etc. if at all possible.
>
> Well, apps like to be able to use libsasl, and
On Aug 21, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Now that we have crypto in main, I think we should have fewer -ssl
>packages, not more.
Agreed.
--
ciao,
Marco
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Just explain why it is the right thing to do. And I would like to stay
> binary compatible with RedHat etc. if at all possible.
Well, apps like to be able to use libsasl, and libldap. They also like to
use libc. And libc uses nss, which often adm
Hi Henrique,
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 12:16:38PM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> > in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> What can I
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Hi Torsten :-)
Hi Oliver :)
> I would suggest that you make an extra -ssl package, along the lines of
> eg. fetchmai{,-ssl}l. It reduces dependencies and solves your problem. Maybe
> people want ldap, but not ssl.
I also like that
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Stephen Frost wrote:
> I do wonder though why there is a fetchmail/fetchmail-ssl, is there
> some good justification for keeping them seperate now that we have
> crypto-in-main?
Just the fact that I have all but orphaned it and will not spend time
joining the two package
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
What can I do to convince you that you need to help me convince the SASL
maintainer to have versioned symbols so
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:05:48PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > So - what should I do to handle this? Can the priority of libssl0.9.6 be
> > > easily changed?
Tore Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As far as I know, exim is the only package with priority: important that
> depend on libldap2.
Exim is GPL, so the author currently does not allow the distribution
of binaries which also contain OpenSSL code.
--
Florian Weimer[EMAI
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:52:12PM +0200, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > So - what should I do to handle this? Can the priority of libssl0.9.6 be
> > easily changed? Or should I rather provide libldap2{,-ssl}? Technically
> > it would n
* Oliver Kurth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > - libldap2 is Priority: important
> > - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> > - libssl0.9.6 is Priority: standard
>
> I would suggest that you make an extra -ssl package
* Torsten Landschoff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> - libssl0.9.6 is Pri
Torsten Landschoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
> - libssl0.9.6 is Pri
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:18:38PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> Hi *,
Hi Torsten :-)
>
> Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
> in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
>
> - libldap2 is Priority: important
> - this change will mak
Hi *,
Today I was convinced by Stephen Frost that I can just enable SSL support
in the OpenLDAP packages I maintain. No problem so far, but:
- libldap2 is Priority: important
- this change will make it depend on libssl0.9.6
- libssl0.9.6 is Priority: standard
So - what should I do to handle thi
37 matches
Mail list logo
