* Ron Johnson | 2007-12-22 13:01:44 [-0600]:
>Then would it be helpful to specify in the long descrip that it's
>main purpose is Linux<->Linux transfers?
Why not. Martin, it is up to you to edit these lines ... ;-)
HGN
--
Hagen Paul Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || http://jauu.net/
Telephone
Quoting "Leo \"costela\" Antunes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please note that I don't personally like Qmail either, but I still think
> we should (but don't *have* to) provide it, if possible (I don't know
> what's the outcome of the "putting it in public domain" story).
Why was it removed from Debia
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
http://packages.debian.org/etch/qmail-src for some explanation.
--
* Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071222 20:22]:
> > Note that the w* packages provide word lists, which are important to
> > many programs. One could argue that a standard Unix system should
> > have a word list; at least, every Unix system I have used provides
> > one.
>
> OK. Which p
> If there was someone else really prepared to do a better
> job with this than I seem to have done, they'd have naturally taken
> over as the primary maintainer a long time ago.
Really? Ron, you're crying hijacking whenever somebody else tried to
touch wx. If upstream breaks the API/ABI at rando
Henning Glawe wrote:
> seems like something went wrong during the etch 4.0r1 update on the ftp
> mirrors: the old etch kernel packages got removed from the archive, but are
> still referenced in the package lists.
This has already been reported as #455089.
Regards,
/Lamby
[0] http://bugs.debi
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 07:16:20PM +0100, Hagen Paul Pfeifer wrote:
* Ron Johnson | 2007-12-21 21:30:08 [-0600]:
From reading the web page, it seems that netsend might only work
between Linux systems. Am I reading it wrong?
You are right. Netsend is optimized for linux: splice(), madvice(),
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: sauerbraten-wake6 (for main)
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author: wakeup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.quadropolis.us/node/1026
http://wakeup.rundumbonn.de/wscm/mapping/wake6.html
* License
Package: slocate
Version: 3.1-1.1
Hello,
I have been pondering to NMU slocate to fix #451792 and #452892,
however I quickly realized that I failed failed to see the point to
invest any time there. Afaik with mlocate we have replacement which
- has got the same feature set
- is faster
- is not de
23.12.2007 pisze Kalle Kivimaa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
> It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
> license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
> http
On Fr, 21 Dez 2007, Julien Cristau wrote:
> $ dchroot sid
Thanks ...
Best wishes
Norbert
---
Dr. Norbert Preining <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Vienna University of Technology
Debian Developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Miros/law Baran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ah, but it's been there, once. I remember that my first Debian
> installation included in the default setup all the accounts used by
> qmail (if not the qmail itself).
OK, that's possible, I can only remember back to about 2000, when
there was only the
* brian m. carlson | 2007-12-23 14:26:34 [+]:
>Also, madvise(2) is apparently BSD, and even if it's not, it can be
>substituted with posix_madvise(2). So if splice is the only system call
>that isn't portable, it should probably be easy to port.
You scratch the surface! It isn't simple mad
Quoting Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
>
> It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-free, as the
> license didn't permit binary distribution. See e.g.
> http://packag
Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!? And can't
> the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
Yes, the license has been changed, QMail is now fully distributable
and modifiable. Dunno if this ITP should actually be considered
Hi,
On Fri, 21.12.2007 at 11:14:01 -0800, Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is the version that is proposed to be packaged patched to reject mail at
> the SMTP level for unknown users rather than accept mail and bounce it
> later? qmail in its default operational mode is a spam reflector
Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> So what changed? Did Bernstein change his licence!?
According to[0], yes.
> And can't
> the qmail-src maintainer just upload a binary package?
I suppose so, yes.
> Opinions are like a butt -
> everyone got one (sorry, couldn't remember the English equivalence
> of t
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 02:05:41PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [071222 20:22]:
> > > Note that the w* packages provide word lists, which are important to
> > > many programs. One could argue that a standard Unix system should
> > > have a word list; a
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 06:54:32PM +0100, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Quoting Kalle Kivimaa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Why was it removed from Debian GNU/Linux in the first place!?
> >
> > It's never been in Debian. The source package is in non-fre
tags 457353 + wontfix
thanks
On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
> You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
> package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that this shouldn't be
> a Debian-native package.
Sorry, but I disa
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 08:08:42AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> [Anthony Towns]
> > Kind of reviving an old thread, but anyway:
> > It also includes, but afaics, probably doesn't need to (anymore):
> >
> > ispell, dictionaries-common, iamerican, ibritish, wamerican
>
> [Agustin Mart
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> tags 457353 + wontfix
> thanks
>
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>> You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
>> package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that this shouldn't be
>> a Debi
Neil Williams wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> tags 457353 + wontfix
>> thanks
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 07:20:57PM +, brian m. carlson wrote:
>>> You're missing a .diff.gz, which means that this is a native package. This
>>> package is in no way specific to Debian, which means that
Luk Claes wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
>>> package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
>>> in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the
>>> software has been use
Luk Claes wrote:
> Neil Williams wrote:
>> i.e. native should be a last resort - used only when it is all but
>> impossible for the package to be used outside Debian or some distro
>> fundamentally based on Debian like Ubuntu.
>>
> I thought this consensus was already a fact and that some maintaine
Quoting Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I suggest packaging qmail-ldap (www.qmail-ldap.org) instead, which
> fixes this problem and adds a number of other desirable features as
> well (compressed mail transfer, TLS support, cluster support,
> you-name-it).
I sent a patch to qmail-src to build
Hi,
On Sun, 23.12.2007 at 20:17:16 +0100, Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> There are times where qmail-ldap is to much (on hosts where a smart host
> is used for example) and there I use the 'simple' qmail package. On mail
> servers, I use the qmail-ldap package...
why, just set c
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
> package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
> in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream for gdome2-xslt and the
> soft
Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> Sorry, but I disagree with this interpretation. For me a Debian native
>> package is a package which contains the official debian packaging stuff
>> in the upstream tarball. Since I'm also upstream fo
[N.B. I am subscribed to -devel; please do not CC me if you are
following up there. ]
On Sun, Dec 23, 2007 at 07:35:12PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
There are other examples of packages in the archive which are no way
Debian specific, but which are native as gdome2-xslt is; a fresh exampl
brian m. carlson wrote:
> It is my impression that this is the case already, but Policy is silent
> on the issue; I checked before I filed the bug. Perhaps if a consensus
> can be reached a guideline should be placed in Policy so that people are
> not further confused.
Please see [0], on this sa
This one time, at band camp, Turbo Fredriksson said:
> So to be or not to be is irrelevant - the question is: are we
> ALLOWED to distribute it or not?
No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces
of so
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: libtest-yaml-valid-perl
Version : 0.03
Upstream Author : Jonathan Rockway,
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-YAML-Valid/
* Li
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: David Paleino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
* Package name: libtest-yaml-meta-perl
Version : 0.06
Upstream Author : Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://search.cpan.org/dist/Test-YAML-Meta
On Sat, Dec 22, 2007 at 12:04:06PM +0100, root wrote:
Humourous or risqué?
--
Chris.
==
It appears that I need to underline again who is reponsible for
setting the severity of bugs (and indeed, any control@ modifiable
value.)
If you are not the maintainer, nor a release manager, you do not have
the authority to override the severity that a maintainer has assigned
a bug. If you are fi
Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No, actually the question is whether it's worth Debian's time to maintain
> it, distribute it, and support it. qmail is one of the few pieces
> of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author
> recommends running it under a supervis
Hi,
I checked out your music page, and want to invite you to start a free artist
page at IAC.
IACmusic.com is an indie allstar site, it recently got mention in Rolling
Stone, and has been called the most innovative music site on the web. Cashbox
Magazine liked the site so much that now all
Quoting Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> qmail is one of the few pieces
> of software I've ever seen that is so poorly written that it's author
> recommends running it under a supervisor because it can't stay running
> on it's own.
I wasn't planning on actually replying to this bag of complete
Quoting Toni Mueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Right. How about integrating ldap-control, too?
The patch I'm talking about have this (quite naturally :).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
40 matches
Mail list logo
