> I partly concur. Even if the developer->user channel was completely
> secured by signatures et al, we would still have the problem of an
> attacker gaining very much by breaking into a single developer's
> machine. You're netbase package is a good example: it contains a
> couple of programs usual
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 07:50:31PM -0300, Rodrigo Castro wrote:
> Hello Branden,
>
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 05:07:11PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:48:24AM -0300, Rodrigo Castro wrote:
> > > Sorry for sending this message again and sorry for sending to
> > > dev
Branden Robinson writes ("Re: Ian Jackson, please get me the hell off your
blacklist."):
> I see no reason not to reply [...]
I think you are being hypocritical. You complain when other people
post their opinions and discussions of this topic with you, yet you
post your own diatribes here. Sinc
I've just sent another, long, message about mail acceptance,
blacklisting, and this whole flamewar. Please read that message
first; it explains the context of this mail, and without it you might
misinterpret this one.
This message is about my opinion of the DUL, which I support and use.
In fact m
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> Bug stamp-out list for Mar 31 03:06 (CST)
> Package: bind (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 61129 base: bind upgrade leaves two named's running
I see how this can happen in some odd cases. Should have a fix uploaded in
Hello
I've just packaged gtans, a tangram (chinese puzzle) game written
with GTK. As i'm not a developer yet, Rafael <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
agreed to sponsors me :) . In fact, the package is near completion.
package and source are at www.wiktor.dk/~yip/debian/ (apt-get ok)
upstream author p
> Similarly, I have packaged devfsd (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/).
> This one still needs a couple of problems ironing out first.
No offense, but I hope you realize the amount of effort that will be
needed for devfsd. Since it is a key element in our 2.4.x upgrade path,
the amount of p
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:09:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > Similarly, I have packaged devfsd (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/).
> > This one still needs a couple of problems ironing out first.
>
> No offense, but I hope you realize the amount of effort that will be
> needed for devfs
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 06:42:59PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:09:30PM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Similarly, I have packaged devfsd
> > > (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/).
> > > This one still needs a couple of problems ironing out first.
> >
> > No offen
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > As dinstall verifies the keys on the packages (which already exist, btw,
> > > they are just not propagated), it puts itself in the middle of the chain:
> > Well, as Jason points out, they are propogated: by the -devel-changes
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 01:00:56PM +0200, Bart Schuller wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:46:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > PGP (v2.x, I'm not uptodate with the recent OpenPGP stuff), generates a
> > secret (albeit symmetric, rather than public/private keypair) IDEA key
> > everytime you tr
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 07:44:56PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Note that *any* keys that your agent holds can be snarfed by the
> admin(s) of any hosts where you ssh-in with agent forwarding enabled.
As I understand it, you can't actually *obtain* the keys, you can just
*use* them. Often thou
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 06:52:37PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > It's currently the case, yes, but it *could* be changed. You could,
> > for example setup dinstall so that it wouldn't accept NMUs of certain
> > important packages (such as gnupg).
> A good idea. Still: with package-granularity,
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:05AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> That mail direct from dynamic dialups is a problem is recognised
> throughout the community. Not only did Paul Vixie, the author of
> BIND, and other leading lights of the Internet, decide to host,
> support, etc, the DUL. Many ISPs p
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:56:11AM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> I think you are being hypocritical. You complain when other people
> post their opinions and discussions of this topic with you, yet you
> post your own diatribes here. Since your request to keep the
> discussion to private email seem
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:13:42PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> http://www.debian.org/~stevegr/debutils/debianutils_1.13.3_i386.deb
> Raphael and Ingo, if you get a chance, can you confirm I didn't screw
> this up? Rainer, I think this fixes your bug too (#57464). Guy, if you
> don't object by
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 10:16:42PM +0100, Tom Lees wrote:
> LIRC is Linux Infra-red Remote Control support, see
> http://fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de/~columbus/lirc/index.html
Ist it compiled for only one certain receiver type + port? Or were you able
to make it configurable?
Rainer
--
KeyID=58341901
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Dan White wrote:
> gnome-db (http://www.gnome.org/gnome-db) is "a framework for creating
> database applications. It provides a common API with pluggable back ends
> to different database sources as well as various specialized widgets for
> handling many database tasks." It
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, Apr 01, 2000 at 10:13:38AM -0800, esoR ocsirF wrote:
> > Caution, IANAD. Just tring to help
> >
> > Package: cricket (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 56948 cricket depends on non-existant package
> >
> > Pac
Hi,
I don't like getting spam. I dislike the fact that I am
inconvenienced. I have not yet decided to give in, though. And, in
my opinion, bouncing mail from people innocent of sending spam is
giving in to spammers.
I ifnd this phenomena remniscent of may people in the trhoes
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> It's all going to end in heat death anyway.
Of course, so we might as well turn off the computers right now.
Cheers
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 09:41:29AM +0200 , Michael Meskes wrote:
> After upgrading my machine I found some obsolete packages. Before purging
> them I'd like to know if there are replacements:
> lde
yes. it had RC, and it is still in mess due to some strange gcc header
interactions :(
> manpages-n
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> discourages the establishment of outbound SMTP connections from dialup
> machines, whether t
Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> All packages can run things as root. Even the most simple game.
Doing clandestine things in a install-script is harder than in a
binary.
--
Robbe
On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 20:28:41 David Starner wrote:
> Um, that's not what I've heard. Since optimizing for the Pentium
> will sometimes pessimize the Pentium (Pro, II, III), and the
> speedup from most programs is not that great, and anything that
> needs it can be recompiled locally, it wasn't wort
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> type of connection, and must be the enemy.
The analogy is flawed. Solutions have b
I asked to list :
"How to hide/show cursor without Ncurses libraries..."
and you answered me, Dos programmers were weenie because they...,
...it is evil consider a generic terminal...
That's a yours suggestion/opinion/idea, but you didn't answered me really.
Please read the question carefully!
A
First I'd like to know what "dialup" includes means for you.
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It does seem that some people do find it beneficial to send mail
> direct from their dialups (static or dynamic). I don't understand why
> they think this is a good idea,
There are apparently
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:01:30PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:57:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > > As dinstall verifies the keys on the packages (which already exist, btw,
> > > > they are just not propagated), it puts itself in the middle of the
> > > > cha
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:24:02AM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> Nicolás Lichtmaier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > All packages can run things as root. Even the most simple game.
> Doing clandestine things in a install-script is harder than in a
> binary.
#!/bin/sh
/usr/games/mygame --update-
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:01:22PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> There are apparently a number of ISPs that do well in providing an IP
> pipe, but suck big rocks when it comes to administering a mail server.
>
> This number will certainly grow as more and more infrastructure
> (phone, cable, el
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 08:11:15PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
>
> We might want to revoke the old key. If James leaves we can't revoke his key
> because it is HIS key. We can however revoke the dinstall key because it
> is by definition Debian's key. But this is nitpicking.
Who is Debian?
On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 02:30:12PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>
> > This is a seperate problem. I agree that this should not be the case, but it
> > has no place in this discussion. If individual developer keys are
> > compromised, we have a problem
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:09:41PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:00:52AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > You appeal to authority, call for bandwagon jumping, and rely upon
> > anecdotal accounts, but have yet to point to an RFC that forbids or
> > discourages the esta
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 02:38:24AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > The problem with DUL is that they don't care if the people
> > blocked ever sent any spam. The have the wrong color ski^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
> > type of con
Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sun, Apr 02, 2000 at 07:44:56PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > Note that *any* keys that your agent holds can be snarfed by the
> > admin(s) of any hosts where you ssh-in with agent forwarding enabled.
>
> As I understand it, you can't actually *obtain* the keys, y
Is this a known problem?
Michael
- Forwarded message from Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
Date: 3 Apr 2000 06:03:23 -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Debian Bug Tracking System)
To: Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Processed: Re: Processed:
Processing commands
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:02:29PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > But they could be, with minimal changes. Stick the latest .changes files
> > in debian/changes somewhere and add some code to apt to get it.
> The changes file would be sufficient, but it is not ideal, because it
> always signs a
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:40:51AM +0200, Romain Chantereau wrote:
> > So the original question remains: is there a simple pgcc available
> > somewhere?
>
> Yes ! is there a simple pgcc available somewhere?
There may or may not be, however I highly recommend avoiding pgcc. There
are exactly two
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:10:27PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > We might want to revoke the old key. If James leaves we can't revoke his key
> > because it is HIS key. We can however revoke the dinstall key because it
> > is by definition Debian's key. But this is nitpicking.
> Who is Debian
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 12:49:24PM +0200, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote:
> > As I understand it, you can't actually *obtain* the keys, you can just
> > *use* them. Often though, this is just as good.
> Yes. "Snarf" was the wrong word. Just being able to use them while the
> user is connected restricts you
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 01:36:01PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> Debian *can* make this decision, because we know each other. Most users
> can only go `James who?'.
This is easily identified as a play with names. Who is this "Debian" person
you refer to anyway? After all, behind every action is
Anthony Towns writes:
> Users don't have enough information to make such a decision, however.
> How do they know if James allowed a particular NMU to be made, [...]
It would probably be better to let this essential package be
maintained by a small team. Three or four people would suffice to
lowe
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:58:18PM +1000, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>>
>> The analogy is flawed. Solutions have been offered several
>> times owner for DUL-listed or potentially DUL-listed users.
>> All of which should not be too difficult to set up for
>>
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 04:17:51AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> We all know how screwed up the former is. The latter has (and has had for
> some time) several very obnoxious bugs which result in bad code on certain
Definately - pgcc should be approached with some caution. It's also
been known
BugScan reporter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Package: at (debian/main)
> Maintainer: Siggy Brentrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 61295 at depends on libelfg0
This bug is fixed in at 3.1.8-10.
Since I still can't upload to master, would some kind soul please
do it for me. The files are at h
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 10:08:13AM +0200, Petr Cech wrote:
> > manpages-net
>
> this package appeared only for a short time (and yes, I have it installed
> too). I think it was in Incoming only.
How about re-creating it?
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:42:21AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Furthermore, that any issue is unspecified in an RFC does not mean that the
> RFC's already address all issues that need to be addressed.
Yes, exactly. Therefore ommission of any comment about dialup users
making direct SMTP conne
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 06:49:17AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> What mechanism do you propose that people on dynamic IP's use to identify
> their mails as non-spam while still making direct SMTP connections to the
> MX host of the destination domain?
None, it is not necessary.
Hamish
--
Ham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> The point is: an exact question needs an exact answer.
Except for Craig's understandable but unfortunate need to take shots
at old DOS programmers, he gave you the right answer---and to the
extent that "exactness" matters, it is also exact.
You asked, more or less, "Ho
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:35:08AM +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Apr 2000 20:28:41 David Starner wrote:
>
> > Um, that's not what I've heard. Since optimizing for the Pentium
> > will sometimes pessimize the Pentium (Pro, II, III), and the
> > speedup from most programs is not that great
Dear Colin,
I have some comments on your `update-binfmts' proposal.
1. I like it :)
2. It should be a separate package because we don't want any way that the
standard dpkg package depends on a kernel option that may be compiled
out of a custom kernel.
It could be named binfmt-support a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>But then again this may be overloading the package system since there
>are quite a few kernel modules...
But it would be nice with some standard way to specify a "depend" on a
kernel-option and a "provide" of options for kernel patches. I don't
know any way to c
On Mon, Apr 03, 2000 at 11:59:22AM +0200, root wrote:
> There are bugs in the IMAP implementation of Netscape and Mozilla. All
> the other IMAP servers have workaround to allow fetching from Netscape.
>
> Courier-IMAP has now a workaround, if it is compiled with
> --enable-workarounds-for-imap-cli
Hi *,
The new version of the Linux kernel will introduce a new file system
called shmfs. It has to be mounted for the applications to use the shared
memory features. The standard mountpoint for the shmfs is /var/shm. Maybe it
would be wise to add the directory to the base-files package as well a
On Fri 31 Mar 2000, Jose Marin wrote:
>
> I was wondering if eximconfig is doing the right thing for this option. I
> have machines which are connected on a network, and I want to have a MTA
> but only for the benefit of apps like cron or debconf which need to send
> local mail.
>
> I expected th
Some time ago, someone (I think it was Vincent) asked about the possibility
of including the new LILO with LBA support in frozen, but IIRC this idea was
discarded because there are some issues with this new version.
Today I was wondering if it would be possible to add a new "lilo-lba"
package with
57 matches
Mail list logo
