Bug#490438: ITP: libawl-php -- Andrew's Web Libraries - PHP Utility Libraries

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: libawl-php Version : 0.30 Upstream Author : Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://andrew.mcmillan.net.nz/projects/awl * License : GPL Programming Lang: PH

Bug#490444: ITP: davical -- DAViCal CalDAV Server

Package: wnpp Severity: wishlist Owner: Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Package name: davical Version : 0.9.5.1 Upstream Author : Andrew McMillan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * URL : http://rscds.sf.net/ * License : GPL Programming Lang: PHP Description :

Links site for SEO GoBigg.com

hi, Gobigg is a palce where you can put your site links. It gives exposer to your links and helps in improving pagerank. kindly visit www.gobigg.com. Links 1) Filipina online dating chat room Get more

Re: [RFH] #486212 reportbug-ng segfaults

Adeodato Simó wrote: * Bastian Venthur [Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:39:16 +0200]: There is also no bugreport in python-qt3 indicating that someone else has this problem. FWIW several users have reported crashes in minirok, so it may as well be the same issue. Good to know that rng is not the only o

Re: RFC: Removal of user/groups

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 18:22, Jonas Meurer wrote: > On 11/07/2008 Carl Fürstenberg wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 17:25, Stephen Gran wrote: >> > >> > I think it would be helpful to use the previous 400 discussions of the >> > same topic as a sta

debian-reference: question and review

Hi, I have updated "Debian Reference" (English) in unstable with major change in its contents: http://people.debian.org/~osamu/pub/getwiki/html/index.html I have one question and generic request for review. * question What is the next release name after lenny? * generic request for review: De

Re: Packages not removable because the `/etc/init.d/package stop' fails.

Le Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:45:39PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : > Charles Plessy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As a result, if the daemon is not running, postrm fails and the package > > can not be removed. See #489366 for example. Now I wonder how to deal > > with that kind of problem. It co

Re: Dpkg triggers and user experience, aka "How do I disable those triggers" side effect.

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote: > i.e We should be careful not to add lots of new triggers for doing new > stuffs, that eventually makes the installation to take longer. We can > still defer actions in the background by other means, like cron. > > I've included some

Re: Dpkg triggers and user experience, aka "How do I disable those triggers" side effect.

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 08:24:45AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Wed, 2 Jul 2008, Joey Hess wrote: > >#473461 > > But this bug ends with a question: > > What do you think? I don't think there's any dispute about whether the change is a good idea, only a question about when it should be up

Re: RFC: Removal of user/groups

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 04:56:03PM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote: > I was thinking of the reusability problem, and came up with the following: > When an user/group is removed, it's placed in quarantine. That ID > isn't used unless the same user/group is recreated, or that all other > possible ID:s

Re: Dpkg triggers and user experience, aka "How do I disable those triggers" side effect.

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 09:24:32AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote: > >to, 2008-07-03 kello 08:24 +0200, Andreas Tille kirjoitti: > >>/me as a completely uneducated apt / aptitude user thinks: Triggers have > >>done more harm than good. > > > >I haven't been f

Re: RFC: Removal of user/groups

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 04:56:03PM +0200, Carl Fürstenberg wrote: [...] > I was thinking of the reusability problem, and came up with the following: > When an user/group is removed, it's placed in quarantine. That ID > isn't used unless the same user/group is recreated, or that all other > possible

Re: Dpkg triggers and user experience, aka "How do I disable those triggers" side effect.

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > No, this simply isn't a fair characterisation. It calls it at most once > for every dpkg run. However, apt-get typically works like this: > > dpkg --unpack > dpkg --configure > Isnt it easy for apt-get/aptitute/pkgmanagergui to set a flag "--no-u

Debian release versioning

So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0 in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated. What is to be debated is how to move on from here. I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and

Re: Debian release versioning

On 12/07/08 at 18:09 +0200, martin f krafft wrote: > So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this > choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0 > in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated. > > What is to be debated is how to move o

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?

On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > What are the plans for Xen for lenny? Is this situation likely to change > > > before the release? > > It will ship the hypervisor and a domU kernel. For dom0 it will need > > either the etch or my own[1] kernel. This may be cha

Re: Debian release versioning

* martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]: > I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first > stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on. I really, really dislike this part. Decimals have always meant a completely different release, and I'd rather no

Re: Debian release versioning

also sprach Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008.07.12.2321 +0200]: > I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versioning scheme. > Since "lenny+1/2" is just another stable update, let's just number it > like a stable update. So we don't end up with users thinking "You > released 5.

Re: Dpkg triggers and user experience, aka "How do I disable those triggers" side effect.

On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 18:17 +0100, Colin Watson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 10:31:54AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote: > > i.e We should be careful not to add lots of new triggers for doing new > > stuffs, that eventually makes the installation to take longer. We can > > still defer actions in the

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?

On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 12:03:30PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > What are the plans for Xen for lenny? Is this situation likely to change > > > > before the release? > > > > It will ship the hypervisor and a domU kernel. For

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?

On 12/07/08 at 12:03 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 12:18:51PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > What are the plans for Xen for lenny? Is this situation likely to change > > > > before the release? > > > > It will ship the hypervisor and a domU kernel. For dom0 it will n

Re: Debian release versioning

On 2008-07-12T23:45:29+0200, martin f krafft wrote: > True, but lenny+1/2 breaks with stable update rules (it contains new > packages); the question is whether users care. :) There more than one cluster of users, and there are other stakeholders such as derived distributions. I ran testing and a

Re: Package management unsafe?

Andrei Popescu gmail.com> writes: > How about distributing the Release files *only* from a trusted server? > > Regards, > Andrei That is problematic, as it does not deal with mirror synchronization properly. If a mirror takes a few hours to update, it's Packages files may not be up to date duri

RFH: ppp

The package has many open bugs which need to be triaged and I have not really worked on it in more than one year, but I'd like to fix it in time for lenny. I am looking for one or more co-maintainers, also considering that I only use it maybe once per month nowadays. Knowledge of the PPP protocol

Re: [Pkg-xen-devel] Xen status in lenny?

Vincent Bernat dijo [Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 10:08:09PM +0200]: > > The problem I see with that is that people will be left without a > > supported dom0 kernel at some point during the etch lifetime. Do we have > > a plan to address that? Shouldn't we make it clear that we will support > > the etch ke

Changes detected by lintian on rebuilt packages

Hi all, Probably a week or two ago I contacted Lucas Nussbaum to ask him if he could run lintian on the results of his packages rebuild so they could be compared against the results from lintian.d.o to detect package changes (i.e. new or less lintian-detected issues). I have just started to co

Re: Debian release versioning

Hello, On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 22:45 +0100, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * martin f krafft [Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:09:09 +0200]: > > I propose that we get rid of our r-releases and simply let the first > > stable update to lenny be 5.1, followed by 5.2, and so on. Also, madduck posted that comment on doodl

Re: Package management unsafe?

Hello, On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 23:13 +, Joe Smith wrote: > Andrei Popescu gmail.com> writes: > > > How about distributing the Release files *only* from a trusted server? > The other attack I mentioned (the attack of attempting to exploit a flaw in > any > client that requests a security upda

Re: Debian release versioning

Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]: > > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will > > have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do, > > then lenny+0.5 is late. > > I'm not sure sure that we want to have a hole in our versionin

Re: Debian release versioning

This one time, at band camp, Gunnar Wolf said: > Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:30PM +0200]: > > > lenny+0.5 would logically be 5.5, since it's unlikely that we will > > > have five stable updates out within 1.5/2=0.75 years, and if we do, > > > then lenny+0.5 is late. > > > > I'm

Re: Debian release versioning

martin f krafft dijo [Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09PM +0200]: > So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this > choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0 > in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated. > (...) > Instead of long flamew

Re: Package management unsafe?

Joe Smith wrote: However, if the security updates come from trusted security mirrors rather than a general mirror, that attack would fail too. So with the exception of Sid or Testing users that do not use the testing-security system to receive security updates, Debian really is not terribly vulne

Re: Changes detected by lintian on rebuilt packages

Raphael Geissert wrote: > [2] Haven't found any example of these, yet. Here's one: $ \diff -u xabacus_7.1.7-1_i386.lintian xabacus_7.1.7-1+b1_i386.lintian --- xabacus_7.1.7-1_i386.lintian2008-07-12 20:52:30.0 -0500 +++ xabacus_7.1.7-1+b1_i386.lintian 2008-07-12 20:52:38.00

Re: Package management unsafe?

On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 02:13:08AM +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote: If we also consider the fact that the computer local time might be wrong (hwclock bug + a ntp man-in-the-middle...), re-signing the files doesn't help either [in this very specific case]. I think that your average user would notice

Re: Debian release versioning

Franklin PIAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The idea to bump the integer part for each release looks like a good > idea (which would be consistent with our recent releases numbering, > except sarge). Note that *all* the numeric parts of the version number are integers. That they are separated by

Re: Debian release versioning

I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing) idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would be stable updates. Anyway, lets leave it up to the RMs to paint names and numbers on the bi

Re: Debian release versioning

Paul Wise wrote: > I think that the versioning scheme needs to take into account the > possible implementation of Joey Hess' CUT (Constantly Usable Testing) > idea. I'd suggest 6.X would be CUT releases of lenny+1 and 6.0rY would > be stable updates. Surely those would be 7.0~ ;-) > Anyway, lets

Re: Debian release versioning

la, 2008-07-12 kello 18:09 +0200, martin f krafft kirjoitti: > So lenny will be Debian 5.0. Many people have questioned this > choice, given how we onconsistently went ...-2.0-2.1-2.2-3.0-3.1-4.0 > in the last decade, but it's the RM's choice and not to be debated. > > What is to be debated is how

Re: Package management unsafe?

On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 02:13 +0200, Franklin PIAT wrote: > Hello, > > On Sat, 2008-07-12 at 23:13 +, Joe Smith wrote: > > Andrei Popescu gmail.com> writes: > > > > One costly solution would be to get the client the send a challenge to a > trusted server, which would respond by gpg-signed th