Is compression delayed likely to be the problem ?
(see the note from the changelog below)
aaron
- Add a new compression method ("Compression delayed") that delays zlib
compression until after authentication, eliminating the risk of zlib
vulnerabilities being exploited by unaut
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Aaron Rainbolt
X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org, arraybo...@gmail.com
* Package name : qt6-quickeffectmaker
Version : 6.6.2
Upstream Contact: Debian Qt/KDE Maintainers
* URL : https://www.qt.io/developers
figure.
Has anybody else done something like this?
--
Aaron Isotton | http://www.isotton.com/
If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out.
-- Oscar Wilde
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
hat is and isn't acceptable for debian
rather than
"I think we can safely draw the line at..."
I think, personally, I'll be sticking in the future to packaging things a
little less contraversial.
Just my 2k worth.
Aaron
>
> //Petri
>
>
> --
> TO UNSUBSCRIB
nd telnet should be left in the base system.
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
--
Aaron Howell. Q.U.T Equity Department, Technical Support/Training.
work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lin
chwork.netfilter.org/netfilter-devel/patch.pl?id=3456
--
Aaron Dummer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
for ~aaron; Sun, 21 May 2006 18:32:59 PDT
Received: from firebird.cisco.com (firebird.cisco.com [171.68.227.73])
by fire.cisco.com (8.11.7p2+Sun/8.11.7) with ESMTP id k4M1WwT27104 for
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 21 May 2006 18:32:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (fro
On my Athlon, Linux 2.2 sees only 65M of memory without using mem=.
Linux 2.4-test seems to fix the problem and detects the memory
automatically.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:56:52PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> I just purchased two Athalon-based systems, each with 768M of ram.
> However, under debia
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:15:50AM -0800, Erik Winn wrote:
> Here is the first obstacle - not really a big one, but I spent all day
> digging around and couldn't really find any tools for this one: we want to be
> able to clone the machines easily over the local net.
> boot floppy that asks only
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 12:04:14AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ telnet borg
> Trying 139.179.21.143...
> Connected to borg.cs.bilkent.edu.tr.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> Debian GNU/Linux woody borg.cs.bilkent.edu.tr
> login: root
> Password:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# echo
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:20:42PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.0.1-9
> Severity: important
I am so sick of bug reports being CC'd to debian-devel. That's what
debian-bugs-dist is for. They get mailed to the maintainer anyway,
which may be someone who ac
> Package: grepmail
> Description: search mailboxes for mail matching an expression
> Grepmail looks for mail messages containing a pattern, and prints the
> resulting messages. It can handle compressed mailbox files, and can search
> the header or body of emails. Usage is very similar to grep.
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> "waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen" (emphasis
> on the "supposed to happen")
No offense to the DAM, but I share Eray's pedicament and feel that I
could definately contribute more effectively if I had th
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
> "unstable" and will never encourage a non-developer to run "unstable".
I don't see how this affects the Debian community. If anything, it
would result in more
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:35:51AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness,
> that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the
> NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right?
>
> I'm
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:47:01PM +0200, Yotam wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> > 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
> > "unstable" and will never encourage a non-developer to run "unstable"
>
> Why shouldn't a develope
bility can not be entrusted to brand-new developers (which is
likely the case), I would appreciate suggestions on other ways I could
help.
Thanks,
Aaron Lehmann
pgpOmXfUMfXld.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:49:01PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Balderdash:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>time grepmail foo /dev/null
> 0.29user 0.01system 0:00.29elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
First time:
$ time grepmail foo /dev/null
grepmail foo /dev/null 0.36s user 0.05s system 39%
I'm doing some code which is intended to work on linux and sunos. I
was poking through the header files in /usr/include on my debian box
and found a line in g++-3/stl_config.h which specified:
#if defined(__linux__)
after a quick test, I found out this is true on linux, and not true on
solaris w
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 02:22:45PM +0100, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> Just as a side note, think twice (or even thrice) before using that symbols.
> Is the code really linux specific? For example, a Linux kernel feature
> certainly is, but many other things aren't. Often it is more appropriate
> to c
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 12:20:21PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What is upx good for?
> For all applications that are not used in critical environment, i.e.
> without enough free disc space, or when they are started to often, so
> the decompression time may be too long.
> For example, I will compre
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:38:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is exactly our disagreement. My position is that it is well within
> our capabilities to make this unnecessary. And you disagree with that
> which is fine with me.
It was recently calculated that there are over 2000 kernel option
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:22:33PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> > I should build my own kernel, right?
>
> Sure, you're a computer geek. But remember we don't expect our users
> to be all computer elites. No, they're no dummies. Think about
> scientists, etc. who just simply don't have that much enough
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:44:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> just as you stated you'd be filing bug-reports to get 2.2.17 kernel
> image removed from the archive, i'll be filing "package should not
> exist" bugs against all the excess kernel-image bugs.
Alternatively, you could bring it up wit
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:47:36PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Nonono, we should automate it as much as possible. I envision a
> global Makefile somewhere, and a ports/ directory, and a
> make-world.sh, and... And then Debian GNU/BSD! Yay!
I've been spending a lot of time starting to design a po
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:33:43AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> is there such a thing as cross-compilation for the kernel?
Yes - porting to new architectures would be nearly impossible
otherwise.
kernel-package even supports cross-compilation IIRC.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:39:07PM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> Recent versions of upx can compress a linux bzImage (I've seen 13% shaved off
> a bzImage). debian-installer may use it to squeeze more onto the single
> floppy (kernel + initrd with modules).
Isn't that slightly redundant? A bzIma
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:34:38PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I meant to say binary modules.
Maybe that's the problem! Binary modules are an abomination and should
NOT be distributed seperate from a binary kernel.
Again, refer what craig sanders has to say.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:35:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Incidentally, I assume the temporarily decompressed executables created
> by UPX are mode 700?
I would hope that they have the same permissions as the originals. And
I don't want to imagine what might happen with a suid excecutable...
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
> means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
> IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 03:06:17AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > Really? Seems wrong to me.
>
>Indeed. MMX and PPro are orthogonal features.
Wasn't there "Pentium MMX" in between? I have at least one computer
with one of those processors.
uce the problem compiling the sitemap package from sid.
[Side note: there's also another problem unrelated to this; see
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=763861&group_id=21935&atid=516914
for more information]
Aaron Isotton [ http://www.is
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:13:13 +0100, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
claimed:
[...]
> See groff_char(7). Technically it's Latin-1, but this is planned to
> change to UTF-8 for groff 2.0 (no schedule yet); groff_char(7) advises
> sticking to ASCII, and I agree. You can get everything in Latin-1
>
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:36:52AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> If you are both a DD and upstream, why didn't you package it yourself?
Because he's also a troll.
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:37:53AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> - eventually packaging the mutt CVS tree, as the author has not made any
> new snapshots in the last months
He doesn't seem to be committing much, either. A patch I sent was
repeatedly ignored.
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from
> running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It
> would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use
> gcc-2.95
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> So buidd + distcc on a slow m68k/arm/whatever, and distccd on a fast P4 or
> Athlon, or even on several of those. This is expected to reduce the compile
> time to almost the same as it is on x86 :).
I'm not sure that's true;
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:30:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
>
> You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
> that you are a human.
I almost wonder if someone sent this intentionally in light of the
TDMA bug thread
ture should /var/cache/yelp have?
- how should the cache be updated? by root running yelp-pregenerate, or
by yelp 'on first request'? If yelp must be able to write to the cache,
how should it do so? Via setuid or via group permissions (like the man
cache).
- has any of this already been
want to run apt-get update to correct
these problems
E: Some index files failed to download, they have
been ignored, or old ones used instead.
Thanks
Aaron
Fisher
Title: How to help us
How to help
us
Although
our organization is based on a non-profit principle, we need money to implement
and maintain our projects. We dependent on donations by those who share our
concerns and want to help us with our work.
Please
support us with your donations. W
On 5/7/2010 2:33 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Other distros are using upstart:
>
> http://upstart.ubuntu.com/
I thought Upstart was on the list for release in Sqeeze. Has this changed?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/09/msg3.html
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
. . O
Debian, by default, utilizes the user private group scheme (UPG). This
means that when a new user is created on a system, a group of the same
name, if not already in place, is created, and the user is placed in the
group, as the only user. Thus, when new files (dirs, etc) are created by
that user,
On 5/10/2010 10:23 AM, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:14:00 -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Are there reasons for making the switch? With user groups, umask 002 or
> 022 doesn't make a difference. To switch off user groups, you set
> USERGROUPS=no in adduser.co
On 5/10/2010 11:24 AM, Drake Wilson wrote:
> FWIW (which is probably vanishingly little), I find that dealing with
> significant group or even inter-user interactions on Unix machines
> eventually gets nearly impossible in the absence of full POSIX ACL
> support. Modern Debian supports this well w
On 5/10/2010 1:07 PM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> I still makes sense. The user will not win with the lazier umask but he
> will probably loose security.
>
> See the case the user wants another person in his own group to share
> files. Then he might set the files readable for his group only but not
> fo
On 5/10/2010 4:46 PM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> You can never trust anybody for giving him rights to _all_ of your
> files. So this assuming is never true and a user will not have any
> benefit of this group if the umask is 002!
I trust my wife to all of my files.
>> If you don't trust users in your
On 05/11/2010 07:09 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Aaron already explained this, but I was confused for quite some time about
> the point of UPG and I'm not sure I would have gotten it from his
> explanation, so let me say basically the same thing he said in different
> words.
>
On 5/13/2010 3:34 AM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On 2010-05-13, Charles Plessy wrote:
>> If no stronger objections against a change from 022 to 002 is raised, would
>> you
>> agree changing base-files so that /etc/profile uses 002 on new systems?
>
> Doesn't that lead to "great fun" if you activate N
On 5/13/2010 3:48 AM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Will be done in base-files 5.4.
I just saw the change committed. Thank you very much! This is good news.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581434#25
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
. . O . O O O . O . O O . . O
O O O
On 05/14/2010 06:40 PM, Klaus Ethgen wrote:
> Oh, I will not make any more comment to that decision. Maybe I will
> search for a more secure distribution. This decision is much to much.
> And it is the last straw that breaks the camels back. Debian was was my
> favorite distribution for over ten ye
On 05/15/2010 05:26 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 14:16 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> for regular users
> Would have to double check it,... but doesn't the current change also
> affect root?
This does, but root is also in his own UPG. If you add any user to the
root
On 05/15/2010 05:50 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-05-15 at 13:45 +0200, Holger Levsen wrote:
>> This paragraph should be accompanied by something like:
>>
>> Instead of adding users to other users private groups (which has issues as
>> explained above) it is recommend to creat
On 05/15/2010 02:00 AM, Robert Klotzner wrote:
> Also as far as I understood from a previous post, this change will only
> affect
> new installations, not existing ones. So even if a user misunderstood the
> concept and added other users to his private group, this change does not
> affect
> hi
On 05/15/2010 10:47 AM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
>> Also, I have not seen on -devel that the idea of having a different
>> umask for system and regular users has been implemented in
>> base-files yet. I propose to not mention this until base-files is
>> u
On 05/15/2010 02:51 PM, Willi Mann wrote:
> Is it possible to detect whether an account is configured properly based on
> the UPG idea? If yes, wouldn't it then make sense to only set umask 002 if a
> proper UPG account is detected, otherwise 022? This would avoid putting non-
> UPG systems on da
On 05/15/2010 12:16 AM, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> Somethink is wrong here. Should 314347 be reopened ?
Agreed. It's not working as it should. Running openssh-client version
1:5.5p1-3, and setting the write bit on my private group seems to keep
the client from behaving as expected.
--
. O . O .
On 05/16/2010 12:39 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Because the further discussion was wrong. System users have login shells
> in Debian. (I consider this a very long-standing bug.)
Then the logic should be in play. System users don't necessarily have a
private group, so their umask should be 0022. If
On 05/16/2010 05:11 PM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> They have login shells in the sense that their shell field in /etc/passwd
> is /bin/sh, but if they do not really "login" to the system, then they
> do not read /etc/profile.
>
> In either case, if we plan to set default umask in /etc/login.defs or
>
On 05/17/2010 07:00 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> There is no such thing as Debian's idea of UPG. There is simply the fact
> that when you create a user with UPG, it uses the first uid and the
> first gid available. It can happen that they don't match, in the
> scenario I gave above. This applies to any
On 5/17/2010 7:34 AM, Marvin Renich wrote:
> This looks like a bug in pam_umask. UPG has never guaranteed uid=gid.
> I'll file a bug.
While the numerical ID might not match, the names should:
id -gn should equal id -un
After all, that is part of the definition of the UPG setup.
--
. O . O .
On 05/17/2010 10:02 AM, Harald Braumann wrote:
> - you could have a UPG system but a mismatch of IDs -> wrong umask
ID numbers, yes. ID names, no. If the user name maches the group name,
IE: aaron = aaron, then the user matches the private group. If the match
is not made, then umask 0022
On 05/17/2010 10:49 AM, Harald Braumann wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 10:14:28AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> On 05/17/2010 10:02 AM, Harald Braumann wrote:
>>> - you could have a UPG system but a mismatch of IDs -> wrong umask
>>
>> ID numbers, yes. ID names
;t doing anything
for the discussion.
> On Mon, 2010-05-17 at 11:04 -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> If you're using a non-UPG system, then you don't care. Debian is
>> UPG-based, so your argument is invalid.
> You actually, have to care... at least if #581919 is "s
On 05/17/2010 11:46 AM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> If you need to change for example ssh, to allow an authorized_keys file
> or perhaps even things like ~/.ssh/id_rsa to be group-readable and/or
> writable you actively compromise security, at least for those systems
> which do not use (for w
On 05/19/2010 11:25 AM, Santiago Vila wrote:
> For the record: I've changed the umask setting in /etc/profile to this:
>
> if [ "`id -u`" -ge 1000 ]; then
> umask 002
> else
> umask 022
> fi
[snip]
> Some people proposed complex code to determine whether UPG was in use
> for system users. Su
On 05/19/2010 01:00 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> When I do "newgrp " it's still UPG and the umask should still be
> 2, no? This check would change my umask.
If the new default group is named something other than your username,
it's no longe UPG. UPG is only if the user name and group name match,
and
On 05/19/2010 01:20 PM, Philipp Kern wrote:
> Sorry, I assumed that UPG is a system-wide concept and that I could just
> change to my collaboration group and have a useful umask there too. So we
> only cater for the setgid flag on directories?
The "newgrp" command changes your default group. The
On 05/19/2010 01:25 PM, James Vega wrote:
> Except /etc/profile won't be sourced again unless "newgrp - " is
> used, right?
Correct, or the user issues a new login shell after the change has been
made.
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
. . O . O O O . O . O O . . O
O O O . O .
On 05/19/2010 03:11 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Or is that already, the case? At least I've had the impression that
> neither mine, nor the arguments of some other people (Harald, Peter, etc.)
> were even answered here.
You've only mentioned that SSH won't operate if the write bit is set
On 05/19/2010 03:48 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> See above, or do you wish a larger paper discussing the issues?! ^^
So FUD it is. At least you're consistent.
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
. . O . O O O . O . O O . . O
O O O . O . . O O O O . O O O
signatur
On 5/12/2010 1:22 PM, Marcus Better wrote:
> Recently I got the advice [1] to set vm.swappiness to 0, rather than
> the default 60. This improved things dramatically. Apparently Eclipse
> is no longer being swapped out preemptively all the time. The
> difference in perceived responsiveness is spect
Seeing as though upstream Firefox 3.6 released December 1, 2008, and
upstream Thunderbird 3.1 released just a couple days ago, it might be
high time to get xulrunner 1.9.2 into Sid, as both Iceweasel 3.6 and
Icedove 3.1 will depend on it. However, I hear there will be lots of
breakage if xulrunner
On 06/28/2010 02:34 AM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> The latter also applies for iceape and icedove, and is why 3.5/1.9.1 is
> still considered as the release target: iceape 2.0, icedove 3.0, and
> iceweasel 3.5 are all based on xulrunner/gecko 1.9.1. Security support
> for stable will be easier if there i
On 06/29/2010 03:57 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> [1]. A Chromium extension named "AdBlock" exists, but it merely hides the
> junk after downloading them -- so you merely don't see them while still
> being subjected to slowdown, having your bandwidth stolen, being tracked,
> having advertising scripts
On 06/29/2010 05:16 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Uhm, and that gets me what? It would nuke all cookies, including those
> which are supposed to last beyond the session.
Touche. I misread your post, and Chromium's ability to do this by
default. Apologies.
--
. O . O . O . . O O . . . O .
.
I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
beta package provided by the 3rd party Google Linux repository. Is this
intentional? What's the rationale behind using the beta releases for
chromium-browser
On 06/30/2010 01:18 AM, Giuseppe Iuculano wrote:
> On 06/30/2010 06:15 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
>> I just noticed that the chromium-browser package releases in Debian
>> GNU/Linux unstable are synced version-for-version with the google-chrome
>> beta package provided by the 3
You can see the details outlined in this blog post by Tom Callaway:
http://spot.livejournal.com/315383.html
Long story short: The Sun RPC license that affects this bug has been
re-licensed to the 3-clause BSD license. Even though Debian is moving to
eglibc, this is still good news. Finally time t
The Sun RPC license that has plaqued this bug, has been re-licensed to
the 3-clause BSD license. This affects glibc and krb5-*, and possibly
other packages.
The change from Sun is documented here:
http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/old_code_and_old_licenses
Tom Callaway of Red Hat blogged about
Package: hashcash
Version: 1.21-1
According to the documentation, the hashcash binary supports the '-b
bits' switch and argument for calculating a hashcash token of the size
specified. The default size is 20 bits. The '-b' switch argument
supports an exact size, say '-b 40' for minting a 40 bit to
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:31:47AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I think it's worth supporting as an interesting program. It might produce
> faster binaries, it might produce smaller binaries (usually both go hand
> in hand, but not always)
I'd just like to chime in on this. I actually suffer
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:39:56AM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> * Package name: ffmpeg
> Version : 0.46
> Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
> * License : LGPL
> Description : FFmpeg Streaming Multi
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:10:05PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > Are you aware that ffmpeg need lame ?
> yes and no:
>
> yes I am aware of that
> and
> no not "need"
>
> --enable-mp3lame) mp3lame="yes"
> (the default is "no")
>
> but since nvrec requires mp3lame I am trouble anyway ;)
We
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:10:09AM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> Can anyone else shed light on fate of Jared "Solomon" Johnson:
I talked to him on IRC for the first time in 6 months about a month
ago. He said he had moved and has not had Internet access for the past
3 months. Ap
#x27;d prefer some program to be installed in this impure
way than overwriting some other files or sprinkling the file system
with mysterious configuration and cache files. Or maybe it'd be
better to create directories such as /usr/bin//,
/usr/lib/ and so on. I'm not too sure a
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:27:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> In any case, binary modules are a fact of life I'm afraid.
Bull. We are Debian, not fucking RedHat or Mandrake. We strive to
exist without non-free software and using its existance as an excuse
to make your packages far worse is a compl
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:01:39PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> So that they can compile them? If you don't understand why we should do
> that, then there's no point in us two arguing about it.
If they're binary-only, I doubt much compilation will be necessary.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:33:25AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:30:47PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:47:44AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > what is the DIFFERENCE between kernel-headers-2.4.2 and all the other
> > > 2.4.2 kernel headers pack
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:05:42AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:10:48PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > If they're binary-only, I doubt much compilation will be necessary.
>
> They don't just come out of nowhere you know...
"Binary-only&q
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:06:21AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Bullshit. Why don't you do a diff instead of talking about something that
> you have no idea about?
Do you deny that the file named autoconf.h contains precicely what I
suggested? I did not attempt to present an exhaustive description
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:17:35AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > One file, composing of a few kilobytes, is an autogenerated header
> > consisting of #define correctives enumerating the configuration.
>
> I think it's fairly clear that you were trying suggest that this is the
> ONLY difference betw
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:47:14AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> No, but they can at least compile one for i386 easily as we're providing
> matching kernel-headers. You're in exactly the same situation
> (i.e., without binary modules) anyway if you compile your own kernel so
> IMHO it's a moot point.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It's not silly, it is an extremely good idea. I'm very pleasantly
> surprised to hear that they did that. It is basically not possible to
> write safe suid X programs.
IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that onl
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are being
> broken.
> Which is sub-optimal.
I wou
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [OK, ECN isn't
> broken, the routers are, I know, but same effect. ECN breaks stuff].
No, you still are incorrect. The routers are already broken. Use of
ECN merely exhibits evidence of the colossal brain-damage in the routers.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:52:53AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> ECN trips broken stuff. Happy now, Oh Mighty
> Pedant? :)
You could say the same thing about Debian. It can be incompatible with
broken brains warped by certain other OS's...
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:27:18PM -0400, Josh Huber wrote:
> now what do we have?
>
> kernel-image-version--
To be more complete we could have:
kernel-image
I've said before that over 2000 kernel configuration options exist and
it's obviously not feasable to make a standard binar
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 10:25:46AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> I mainly focused on low memory consumption, and Encompass meet this
> requirement.
Yes, but only when you ignore the bloat from the horrible Gnome
libraries that entangle it. "Encompas doesn't take much ram, the ram
is all taken
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> Hmm, is this a typo in the domain name?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> unrouteable mail domain "nsaledov.com"
Typo. He's at nasledov.com.
1 - 100 of 345 matches
Mail list logo
