* [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
than just /bin/bash.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTE
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
>
> I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more possibilities
> than just /bin/bash.
So can we just decide what the po
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
> >
> > I don't think we allow to any shell - but there are more pos
* Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 05:57]:
> ,
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also,
> | they may use test -a/o and the local directive in shell functions,
> | as long as ...
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell
* Bill Allombert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 10:37]:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:44:55AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 1
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
Unfortunately, i have no use anymore for this package and therefore won't
keep maintaining it. A new maintainer is needed, preferably with an
Ethiopian language background, if at all possible.
Maybe it would even be better to completely remove the package from the
D
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:56:32AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> >
> > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show"
> > (aka "bts bugs") command, and want to ask for opinions before I do so.
> >
> > The BTS
On Wed November 15 2006 18:15, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wed November 15 2006 16:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> No, but Policy currently requires scripts that use features not
> >> available from POSIX to declare an appropriate shell, and POSIX
> >> doesn't g
On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 03:50:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > When using "bts show package" or going to
> > "http://bugs.debian.org/package"; we get that behaviour, and I find
> > both of them annoying.
>
> I switched the default to appending dist=unt
On Wed November 15 2006 17:08, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 16:28 -0700, Bruce Sass wrote:
> > Hmmm, I guess I'm confused by Thomas's statement...
> At that point, I suggested and still suggest that we change Policy to
> restrict /bin/sh to a specific set of shells, rather tha
On Wed November 15 2006 21:50, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
<...>
> This does specify what the scripts may expect, but drops all
> wording from this section regarding what the policy expectation of
> /bin/sh is.
I was going to do that, then added it back in because it is implied and
explicit
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:57:21AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 12:56:32AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 01:02:06AM +, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> > >
> > > Thinking of changing the default behaviour of the devscripts "bts show"
> > > (aka "bts bugs
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:50:40PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:14 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> I would rather get away from this wording totally.
> ,
> | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> | feat
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Roberto C. Sanchez ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061114 14:58]:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 05:19:13AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
>> >
>> > * The 2.6.17 kernel should support installing from most CD-ROM/DVD
>> > drives in systems with a SATA controller. Howe
My locale setting is to be found below. On upgrade from sarge to
etch, I see thousands of lines like
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
LANGUAGE = "en_CH:en_US:en_GB:en",
LC_ALL = (unset),
LC_TIME = "en_GB.UTF-8",
LC_CTY
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 09:27:59AM -0300, Damián Viano wrote:
> > I fixed bug#396232 in devscripts version 2.9.24. But when I went to
> > http://bugs.debian.org/devscripts, it listed this bug among the open
> > bugs. Why? Because m68k or some other arch had not yet autobuilt
> > version 2.9.24 a
martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> LANGUAGE=en_CH:en_US:en_GB:en
^
There is a Swiss English? I didn't know that.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
We've received your email and will handle your request as quickly as possible.
We will contact you only if we need additional information.
Thank you,
Columbia House DVD Club
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: deluge-torrent
Version : 0.3.1.1
Upstream Author : Zach Tibbitts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alon Zakai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.deluge-torrent.
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Julien Danjou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: freevo
Version : 1.6.0
Upstream Author : Duncan Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and others
* URL : http://freevo.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Programming Lang: Python
Descr
also sprach Matthias Julius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.11.16.1637 +0100]:
> > LANGUAGE=en_CH:en_US:en_GB:en
>
> There is a Swiss English? I didn't know that.
I've provided some LC_MESSAGES for my own use, yes. It's not
official.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
Hi,
Adduser has this debconf question (not asked by default):
Normally, home directories can be viewed by all users on the system. If
you want to increase the security/privacy on your system, you might want
your home directories only readable by the user. If you are unsure,
enable system wide
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 04:52:57PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> There are good chances that Etch will contain 2.6.18, but due to some
> open bugs the Release Candidate 1 of the installer has still 2.6.17.
Because of the sysctl deprecation issue, it might be a good idea to
either consider 2.6.1
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 18:31]:
> > > > 1. /bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any shell.
> > >
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>
> AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible shell"
> does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better to state
> that, `only POSIX features should be used in Debian "sh" scripts',
> followed by a list of excep
This one time, at band camp, Olaf van der Spek said:
> > Please take ~/public_html into this consideration.
>
> ~/public_html (probably) won't work with 751, but that's the choice and
> problem of the administrator that choses no.
Of course it works - that's the point of 751, I thought. Now, I
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, John Kelly wrote:
I don't need NFS with sendmail. Surely flock() is not *still* broken
in 2.6 kernels?
I doubt that flock is *still* broken - that was quite some time ago...
** NOTE: Override HASFLOCK as you will but, as of 1.99.6, mixed-style
** file locking is n
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 11:24:34 -0800 (PST), Richard A Nelson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>** NOTE: Override HASFLOCK as you will but, as of 1.99.6, mixed-style
>>** file locking is no longer allowed. In particular, make sure
>>** your DBM library and sendmail are both using either flock(
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:03:27AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:44 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 09:35]:
> > > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 09:30 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > restricts way too much (you can't use "debconf" then) unless we wink and
>
> Could you
On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>
> > AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
> > shell" does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better
> > to state that, `only POSIX features should
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 13:36:47 +0100, Bill Allombert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On the other hand, it more or less mandates that /bin/sh is
> /bin/bash (because /bin/sh is not a config file, and baring policy
> authorization, users are not supposed to change symlinks in
> /bin).
No. Deb
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 10:06:15 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>>
>> AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
>> shell" does not really convey what Debian wants, it would be better
>> to state that, `o
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 04:14 -0700, Bruce Sass wro
>>
>> > AFAICT, "/bin/sh can be a symbolic link to any POSIX compatible
>> > shell" does not really convey wha
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a
> POSIX (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
> understood that the shells in question do not have grave bugs.
I know what Posix.2 says,
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:23 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The issue, apparently, is that under policy, some shell can
> come up with all kinds of shadowing of things like debconf. I
> suggest that if brought before the TC, the TC shall decide that is a
> bug in the shell. Policy is
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> Debian Technical policy is applicable to Debian systems. A
> POSIX shell, in this context, lives on a Debian OS. I the shell
> overrides debconf in an incompatible manner, that would break things,
> and would be a grave bu
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:44:05 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 19:17 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>
>> In this case, your scripts are meant tot be runnable using a POSIX
>> (+ a few features) compatible shell on a Debian system. It is
>> understood
> > I know what Posix.2 says, but it does not define the term "POSIX
> > compatible shell". Can you tell me what that means? I really am
> > genuinely stymied. I think some people have an incorrect
> > understanding of what POSIX actually says in this regard, but I'm
> > not sure.
>
>
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 18:22:32 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
> POSIX does not distinguish at all between the status of echo, ls,
> and test. It puts them in the same section, talks about them in the
> same terms, and so forth. In no way does POSIX say or imply that
> the
On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 21:16 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Your scripts shouuld really just use whatever POSIX mandates
> ls has. Just like it should use whatever POSIX mandates test has.
Ok, so this means something like the following would be good for policy:
"When POSIX specifies a c
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 06:13:38PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
>> Please take ~/public_html into this consideration.
> ~/public_html (probably) won't work with 751,
Sure it will work. As well as ~/.plan (for finger), your own picture
for the GDM face browser, ... That's the whole point of 75
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 12, 2006 at 03:50:46AM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > On Sun, 12 Nov 2006, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> > > When using "bts show package" or going to
> > > "http://bugs.debian.org/package"; we get that behaviour, and I find
> > > both of them annoyin
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Adduser choses 751, which is wrong IMO, as the directories are still
> readable, they're just not listable.
The directories aren't readable either; their contents may be, but you
can't see what the contents are.
> ~/public_html (probably) won't wor
Hi,
Could we have something like this after release:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Max Spevack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Nov 16, 2006 11:39 PM
Subject: FC6 downloads and installs
To: fedora-announce-list@redhat.com
Pardon the widest possible distribution, but I hope that people
Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 06:13:38PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Please take ~/public_html into this consideration.
~/public_html (probably) won't work with 751,
Sure it will work. As well as ~/.plan (for finger), your own picture
for the GDM face browser, ... T
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Adduser choses 751, which is wrong IMO, as the directories are still
readable, they're just not listable.
The directories aren't readable either; their contents may be, but you
can't see what the contents are.
I guess that d
On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2006 17:40:20 -0700, Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > On Thu November 16 2006 11:06, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> >> The problem is that "POSIX feature" is a meaningless term in this
> >> context.
> >
> > I see your poi
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> Yes, do you think 750 or 751 should be used?
751 is an appropriate default for non-world readable home directories.
If you want something else, you can always set /etc/adduser.conf.
> Consider the case where a user wants an easy way to ensure that n
Bruce Sass <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu November 16 2006 18:23, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>> O, good grief. This is not Law 101. This is the technical
>> policy all kinds of non native developers must read, understand, and
>> follow; arcane corner cases and increasingly complex l
(please respect Reply-to to avoid cluttering 3 lists at the same time)
To make the work of the French l10n team easier I do a daily survey of
changes to debconf templates that trigger translation updates needs.
I'm currently seeing changes to 1 or 2 packages *every day*.
Most of these are probab
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 326 (new: 11)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 87 (new: 0)
Total number of packages request
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Manoj Srivastava ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061116 05:57]:
> > ,
> > | "Shell scripts specifying /bin/sh as interpreter must only use POSIX
> > | features, additionally, they may assume that echo -n . Also,
> > | they may use test -a/o and the lo
* Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
> On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > > actual list should be given? Saying "works on a Posix compatible shell"
> > > restricts way too muc
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:23 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Thomas Bushnell BSG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061117 00:48]:
> > On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 20:51 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > I can live with a list of features. But then, geez, don't you think the
> > > > actual list should be given? Saying
56 matches
Mail list logo
