On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:32, david nicol wrote:
> I've been trying to popularize a centralized challenge-response
> database since last fall. It seems to me that becoming a debian
> package maintainer for the software to use it would make sense.
>
> Unlike TMDA's distributed profusion of extended add
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:15:57AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> Are these actually used somewhere? If I switch my browser language I see
> packages.d.o still in English, if I switch my environment, dselect and
> apt-cache show package descriptions still in English... What are these
> translations
Hi
I have a question for you. I'm the maintainer of horde and imp.
These two packages have been superseeded by horde2, imp3 and turba.
What I want your opinion on is if I should still keep this old
(and buggy and unsupported upstream) horde and imp software inside
Debian? The later versions is a
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:44:08PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:15:57AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > Are these actually used somewhere? If I switch my browser language I see
> > packages.d.o still in English, if I switch my environment, dselect and
> > apt-cache show p
i wrote:
> * Package name: xmms-rplay
> Version : 1.0.2
> Upstream Author : lantz moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://sourceforge.net/projects/rplay/
> * License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
DOH, i forgot to define the license. xmms-rplay is GPL.
tha
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jakob Lell wrote:
>> many shell scripts use tempfiles like /tmp/tempfile.$$. This creates
>> insecure tempfile vulnerabilities. One commonly used fix for this problem
>> is to use set -e or/and set -C in the shell script. [...]
> Debian already has a gene
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 04:46:47PM -0600, Wojtek Baszczyk wrote:
> To whom it may concern:
>
> My name is Wojtek Baszczyk I am a Polish-English-Polish
>Translator. Currently I'm on the contract with TermSeek Inc. for which
>I've been doing Business and General Purpose translations. I've
Op vr 05-09-2003, om 09:16 schreef Martin Quinson:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 10:44:08PM -0700, Joshua Kwan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:15:57AM +0200, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > Are these actually used somewhere? If I switch my browser language I see
> > > packages.d.o still in English, i
* eManager Notification **
BP Security Policy restricts the transmission of certain attachment types. If
you are sending a legitimate file please resend this in a ZIP file.
Source mailbox: "debian-devel@lists.debian.org"
Destination mailbox(es): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Policy:
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Another question: tempfile(1) says:
> | Debian packages using tempfile in maintainer scripts must depend on
> | debianutils >= 1.6.
>
> tempfile 1.6 was released april 1997, i.e. it was probably included in
> Bo, or it for sure in Hamm. Shouldn't this s
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: sage
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Simon Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.worldforge.org/
* License : LGPL 2.1
Description : Supports OpenGL in SDL a
See debian/rules. You might also want to look at
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html, especially
http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-debianrules .
[there should be better documentation, but I'm not sure what it would be]
Daniel
Dear Friends
I´ve readed the debian pages on how to create an debian package, i manage
sucessfully,
But i has one doubt
since i´m comming from rpm spec files, i´d like to know if the follow lines
can be added to
debian/rules and to what section i should add on the file, please note that
macros l
Dear Client:
This auto-response is our acknowledgement of receipt of
your e-mail.
Over the next TWENTY-FOUR HOURS we will EITHER contact you
by phone, by fax OR send you specific answers/comments (if
required) to the actual correspondence sent by you.
Sincerely
MoHILL Accounting Services
("A
Le Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:05:06AM -0300, Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes a écrit :
>
> since i?m comming from rpm spec files, i?d like to know if the follow lines
> can be added to
> debian/rules and to what section i should add on the file, please note that
> macros like %{name} %{version} is alread
Hi
Gaetan Ryckeboer
yes, is shell script and rpm.spec allow this inside, so debian/rules allow
this. i can post my debian/rules file here if need
Regards
Luiz
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400
Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This clause has a direct effect on all users,
> restricting the use of e.g. encrypted filesystems.
>
> That's a new one on me. I don't think the GFDL restricts
> the use of encrypted filesystems.
I have ment
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:23:13PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I believe supporting upgrades which skip one release (for example,
> from oldstable to testing) should be a must, but unfortunately this is
> not written anywhere.
Not to mention that it hasn't really worked for several releases now.
Sorry folks, I CC'd: -devel instead of -legal. God I hate Reply-To:s :)
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 12:03:59 -0400
David B Harris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 21:55:07 -0400
> Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This clause has a direct effect on all users,
> > restr
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 11:05:06AM -0300, Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes wrote:
> I´ve readed the debian pages on how to create an debian package, i manage
> sucessfully,
>
> But i has one doubt
>
> since i´m comming from rpm spec files, i´d like to know if the follow lines
> can be added to
> debia
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:49:45PM -0300, Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes wrote:
> yes, is shell script and rpm.spec allow this inside, so debian/rules allow
> this.
Well... To be precise: debian/rules does NOT allow shell scripts inside. It
only allows shell commands. To catch a difference create Make
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 12:49:45PM -0300, Luiz Rafael Culik Guimaraes wrote:
> yes, is shell script and rpm.spec allow this inside, so debian/rules allow
> this. i can post my debian/rules file here if need
You seem to be programming for RPM in a very different way to the idioms
that have evolved
Ç×°®µÄÅóÓÑ£¬ÄãµÄÐÅÎÒÊÕµ½ÁË¡£
Õâ¸öÊÇ×Ô¶¯µÄ»Ø¸´¡£
ÎÒÏë¶ÔÄã˵µÄ»°Çë¼û±ðµÄÐżþ¡£
This message is being sent to you automatically in response to an email
that you sent to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
If you did not send such an email, please ignore this message.
This remailer is a free service that allows individuals including crime
victims, domestic violence victims, persons in recove
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-09-05
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: inti-sourceview
Version : x.y.z
Upstream Author : Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.example.org/
* License : (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT/X, etc.)
Description : gt
Is the mcrypt maintainer MIA?
The last mcrypt package was released the last year (November) and
there are newer mcrypt and libmcrypt upstream releases.
--
Andres Roldan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://people.fluidsignal.com/~aroldan
CSO, Fluidsignal Group
On Fri, 2003-09-05 at 00:16, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 18:32, david nicol wrote:
> > I've been trying to popularize a centralized challenge-response
> > database since last fall. It seems to me that becoming a debian
> > package maintainer for the software to use it would make sens
I forgot to fill all the fields in the ITP. Here is the complete
information:
* Package name: inti-sourceview
Version : 0.6
Upstream Author : Jeff Franks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://inti.sourceforge.net/
* License : LGPL
Description : gtksourceview
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 08:16:38AM +0200, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I have a question for you. I'm the maintainer of horde and imp.
> These two packages have been superseeded by horde2, imp3 and turba.
> What I want your opinion on is if I should still keep this old
> (and buggy and unsupported upst
Original Message
Subject:
False Representation at Google.com
Date:
Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:20:27 -0700
From:
Ava Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Ava Driscoll wrote:
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: False Representation at Google.com
> Date: Fri, 05 Sep 2003 14:20:27 -0700
> From: Ava Driscoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> I
Recipient of the attachment: SEXCHANGE, RADIANT\RII, StellaHsieh(謝立欣)/收件匣
Subject of the message: Re: That movie
No action was taken on the attachment.
Attachment document_9446.pif was Logged Only for the following reasons:
Scan Engine Failure (0x80004005)
I’m sure your not the only Ava
Driscoll in the world. Why don’t you track the person down who’s
sending out the spam and ask him/her to cease desist using his/her name since
he/she is the one sending the spam and not Debian. You have heard of
Spam?
-Original
Message-
Fr
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 03:56:16PM -0500, david nicol wrote:
> > For challenge response to work it has to be annoying to lots of people.
> > Anything that stops it being annoying will stop it working. That's why
> > it is broken.
>
> Challenge-response, BY ITSELF ONLY, suffers from that problem
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 05:12:35PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Ava Driscoll wrote:
> > I do not appreciate the following showing up:
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01662.html
>
> That email was sent by a virus. This virus is really nasty.
On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 05:12:35PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Ava Driscoll wrote:
> > > I do not appreciate the following showing up:
> > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200306/msg01662.html
> >
> > That
On Sep 4, Matt Chorman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I am currently trying to use apt-get source to compile a few source
> packages.
> I would like to pass some custom configure flags to the configure process -
> i.e. something like conifgure --with-mysql. The dependancies are met, I just
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 05 September 2003 06:04 pm, Neil Roeth wrote:
> You need to look in the package itself for the call to configure, not in
> the apt source. Suppose you are attempting to download and compile
> foo_1.2.3-4.
>
> apt-get source foo# no "--co
On Friday 05 September 2003 23:34, Adam Borowski wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003, Richard Braakman wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 05:12:35PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > On Fri, 5 Sep 2003, Ava Driscoll wrote:
> > > > I do not appreciate the following showing up:
> > > > http://lists.debian.org/d
On Fri, Sep 05, 2003 at 07:07:03PM -0700, Matt Chorman wrote:
> I've taken a look at the files and I understand the source configuration
> process better. What I think this adds up to is, basically, is that my script
> is going to have to hack debian/rules on each package? There is no other way
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 01:34:32AM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
> However, pulling that message from the list archives may be a good idea.
> It's what Ava Driscoll asked for, and the big HTML links sure don't look
> good on the Debian pages.
Debian is not in the habit of editing its history (mailin
42 matches
Mail list logo
