merge 203402 161325
thanks
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 11:20:29PM +0100, Phil Armstrong wrote:
> Here's the output of apt-listchanges for the last update I did, it's
> ok until after the output for flac, then it seems to have the wrong
> changelog. It certainly isn't giving the contents of changelog.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2003 at 07:22:00PM -0500, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Next Debconf is scheduled to be held in Vancouver, Canada.
That would be excellent. Who is organizing it?
--
- mdz
This bug is silly. If there are packages for which it is not clear how
configuration should be handled by the administrator, bugs should be filed
against those packages. This bug is not doing anyone any good here against
'general'.
--
- mdz
severity 154817 wishlist
reassign 154817 ftp.debian.org
thanks
I believe this is handled by katie; if there is a more appropriate place
than ftp.debian.org, please reassign, close, whatever.
--
- mdz
reassign 173231 sysvinit
thanks
I believe this is addressed by the inclusion of bootlogd. Please close if
appropriate.
--
- mdz
reassign 192831 bash
thanks
This doesn't look like a bug, but I'll reassign it for the bash maintainer
to close if appropriate.
--
- mdz
FWIW, this domain does not seem to be registered anymore. I personally do
not believe in registering multiple domains in order to try to use the DNS
to perform spelling correction, and think that this bug should be closed.
--
- mdz
reassign 144046 debtags
thanks
If there are ideas here which could be useful for package tags, great. If
not, and debtags addresses everything here, I think it can be closed, either
now or when package tags are more widely supported by tools.
--
- mdz
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:37:53PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
> > setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
> > review, much as pre-depends are supp
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all setuid/gid
> bit grants to go through this or another list for peer review, much as
> pre-depends are supposed to.
I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug]id setups shou
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:37:53PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 12:55:28PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
>
> > I'd like to see us move all of our setgid games (except, perhaps,
> > nethack) away from using global score files by default.
>
> I think that should be a good option
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> what's wrong with a low-priority debconf question with a sane default?
As long as the sane default is the safe default, which is not to be setgid.
--
- mdz
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:45:16PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I also think it would be a good idea for policy to require all
> > setuid/gid bit grants to go through this or another list for peer
> > review, much as pre-depends are supposed to.
>
> How
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:51:46PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> The latest upstream version of a package I've begun to maintain, IRM, has a
> problem in that a portion of the data in the system (relating to software
> and licence assignment) can't be upgraded along with the rest of the
> databas
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:26:57AM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > I absolutely support this idea. All set[ug]id setups should be reviewed
> > before they go in the archive, and I volunteer to do the review (though I
> > hope
On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 05:33:23PM +0100, Steve Kemp wrote:
> There's probably a lot to be said for building a chroot installation
> and installing each package in turn; but I don't have the time for that
> at the moment.
I have some basic tools for doing this kind of thing using UML's
copy-o
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:03:46PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> I propose to create a meta-package called 'release-status-sarge' that
> depends on packages (with version number) that we want to see in sarge.
I don't think that the most important release goals can be expressed in
terms of ve
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:56:50PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I think you can set it up so users cannot forge high scores by just
> running such a helper. Make the helper sgid scorewriter, and make the
> games setgid scoresetter (these names could be better). Then the helper
> would refuse to write
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 01:46:48PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Here's a draft policy proposal. If this looks ok I'll submit it to the
> policy group.
Thanks for doing this. It looks fine, with the exception of a small typo:
> + Since setuid and setgid programs are often a security rick,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:50:15PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't think that the most important release goals can be expressed
> > in terms of version numbers. For example, RC bug fixes. I don't find
> >
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 08:20:40PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:26PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > it would be trivial to add lintian/linda warnings for this,
>
> There's already a warning for set[ug]id in Lintian.
Ah, ok. But the point w
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 02:15:50PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Only if the game still works -- some games keep not just score
> files, but saved games in the common area, and would not work as
> expected if they could not write to that area.
nethack is the only game which comes to mi
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:13:30PM -0400, Jim Penny wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 16:01:03 -0400 Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I
> > think it should probably be changed to keep the saved game i
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:06:39PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:50:15PM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> [...]
> > > If there are RC bugs to packages that 'release-status-sarge' dep
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:45:42PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 04:38:37PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > And what if the version in testing has an RC bug? "release-status-sarge"
> > says everything is OK.
>
> Do we even know which pack
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:38:46AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > nethack is the only game which comes to mind which does this, and I think it
> > should probably be changed to keep the saved game in the user's home
> > d
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:51:10PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman said:
> > I do not think that version number milestones are important for a
> > release. I think that having a well-integrated, high-quality
> > distribution is important for
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:43:15PM -0700, Thomas Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 01:25:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If something has been in unstable for a year and hasn't managed to
> > have few enough bugs to make it into testing,
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:39:24PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> You are now talking about putting things into policy that
> require maintainerrs to change program behaviour to attain similar
> functionality and features; and all the examples you quote are about
> packaging details tha
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 10:24:46PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> DSA-360: no (daemon)
> DSA-359: yes (uid root: hardware access)
> DSA-358: no (kernel)
> DSA-357: no (daemon)
> DSA-356: yes (gid games)
> DSA-355: no (web css)
> DSA-354: yes (gid games)
> DSA-353: no (daemon, temp fi
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 11:36:58PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Since then, the KDE maintainer decided to upload new KDE. And hit
> a new bug in GCC (3.3) on ia64, which is fixed in GCC CVS but not in
> the current GCC upload. The current GCC upload hasn't been built on
> m68k (it appears
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 12:49:06PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 13:09:09 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > No, we are talking about recommending that developers discuss with other
> > developers before making a change to t
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:22:27PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 14:50:16 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > First, no one would _need_ to discuss this because it is only a
> > recommendation (though a wise one).
>
> Aga
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 05:38:41PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 16:55:12 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > The rules in this section are guidelines for general use. If
> > necessary you may deviate from the detail
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 02-Aug-03, 14:51 (CDT), Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Beyond the coding (which is mostly removing setuid()
> > calls), this involves the following changes:
>
> To ship the setgid program, I need to have the gr
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:03PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> Apropos of the recent setuid/setgid thread, and also being prodded by
> Stephen Frost, I've changed crontab to be setgid 'cron' rather than
> setuid 'root'. Beyond the coding (which is mostly removing setuid()
> calls), this involv
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 11:25:47PM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:53:00PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > To ship the setgid program, I need to have the group 'cron' on the
> > build system.
>
> i think this is covered by fakeroot.
It is not, though doogie and asuff
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:14:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Heh. You should look at what is in the current version:
Is that what you would say to the users who have angband installed on Woody?
I do not think this is something to laugh about.
> Superficial audits are probably
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:57:51AM +0900, Oohara Yuuma wrote:
> I don't care if you mandate a prior peer view _request_ (not prior approval)
This is what was proposed, except that it was recommended rather than
mandated.
--
- mdz
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 12:17:27AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 09:19:23PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > Under this setup, when cron opens a crontab file, it should fstat() it
> > and check that it is owned by the uid under which its contents will
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:58:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Given the last review of a setgid program, I wonder if two
> people are enough.
Surely two people would be an improvement over the current situation, where
there is no review at all. Our demonstration has shown how one pe
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 10:04:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I can easily code an entry for katie and friends that takes a new
> package, and marks up the ones with setgid bits set -- and the ftp
> maintainers do not create override entries until they see a consensus
> develop, or the s
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 11:58:13PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> As I have said before, I have no beef with programs being
> audited. My point, from the beginning, was that the proposal seemed
> to talk about consensus on the list, and seemed to state it was a bug
> not to have achieve
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 10:33:59AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 2003, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > It is? OK, I am telling you /usr/bin/bar program in package
> > foo really needs to be sgid. I'll document it in bar.6. Is this the
> > end of discussion? Or are we going to reall
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 07:55:34PM -0700, Blars Blarson wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 02:51:03PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> >Under this setup, when cron opens a crontab file, it should fstat() it and
> >check that it is owned by t
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 12:11:44AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> And another thing : it seems that the pre-installed Debian he got was
> configured with both testing/unstable in the sources.list file. Pinning is
> not the easiest thing to catch when you are (alone) beginner with Debian...
It's al
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 04:46:30PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Package: gcc-2.95
> Depends: gcc (>= 1:2.95.3-2)
>
> Package: gcc
> Version: 3:3.3-2
> ^^^
>
> I was having a hell of a time recently trying to compile 2.4.20 (machine's
> been flaking since an upgrade to 2.4.21) whic
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 23:37:32 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What you meant to do was to run "make CC=gcc-2.95" instead of make. There
> > is no need to futz around with the defa
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:00:27AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2003 08:56:50 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Yes, I know that's 2.4.21, but I'm not going to unpack a whole 2.4.20 tree
> > to demonstrate that it works the same wa
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:20:21PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 21:14:08 -0700
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> Co
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:59:20AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>Yeah. That was the whole reason I was trying to get a copy of 2.4.20
> compiled with gcc 2.95. I didn't know if it was the compiler or the newer
> version of the kernel that had the problem. I just knew that my problems
> started
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or
> whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce
> problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and
> should not be ignored.
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:41:20 -0400, Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> >> I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking a
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]:
> > Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free
> > software, which we work hard to promote.
>
> Because it would be a waste of
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:14:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Not if the projects have different goals.
>
> If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:55AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the
> > process are you claiming is broken?
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
> > anything in particular.
>
> Actually,
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> >And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate
> >anything in particular.
>
> Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a
> b
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:06:03PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 21:34:26 +0200
> Matthias Urlichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So how can we get it into your head that the other is _not_ a problem?
>
> By explaining why gcc 3.3 is needed for gcc 2.95 to work in the first
>
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 01:40:53PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 16:22:51 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > gcc-2.95 (2.95.3.ds3-5) testing unstable; urgency=low
>
> > * For each binary compiler package xxx-2.95 add a dependency
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:39:42PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 17:06:53 -0400
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You haven't listened.
>
> You've not said anything worth listening to.
*plonk*
--
- mdz
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:48:12PM -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
>
> > You asked for gcc-2.95. You got gcc-2.95. Whatever else you got should be
> > of no consequence whatsoever.
>
> It's this kind of attitude that drives people to gentoo.
I certain
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then
> > the fact that this information is not published on the website does
> &
On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 04:49:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Also make sure to include some leg room if you depend on packages that
> have a tendency to be buggy (glibc, for example).
The new glibc has already stalled the progress into testing of a large
number of packages, and the number of
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 08:25:01PM +0800, Federico Sevilla III wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 12:48:28PM +0100, Hamish Marson wrote:
> > Anyone know where I can get an apt blessed version of libvorbis0? Or am
> > I just missing a package URL in apt?
>
> As far as Sid is concerned I believe it's
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 04:25:31PM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> [ Moved to debian-devel, I don't think this is relevant to private as
> the GNU crack is well publicised ]
It is, in general, very poor taste to make this choice for others by
reposting their content from a private forum to
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 07:59:13PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Since "b" has no effect in Debian anyway, it's not worth thinking about
> anymore. :-)
...except to swear under our breath about upstreams who sneak in changes
without bumping the version number (I personally find this very annoying).
On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 01:24:21PM +0200, Sasha Volkoff wrote:
> At 22:51 19/08/2003 -0400, you wrote:
> >- the output from this command: perl -w -e ""
>
> This is the output:
> perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> LANGUAGE = (un
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 02:17:51AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> That's for Martin Schulze (Joey - Stable Release Manager) and/or the security
> team to decide; not ftpmaster.
A quick scan of those bugs doesn't reveal anything which looks like a
security vulnerability, so this would seem to be pu
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:57:45PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> I'm about to close 95153, 133049, 158040, 16, 170580, 173331, 176223,
> 135603, 161659, 165107, 165135, 165351, 171190, 172529, 173663, 174506,
> 174508, 174509, 192401, 193544, 101725, 122689, 159575, 165126, 182280,
> and 18978
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 09:04:08AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:19:55AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> > We've been over this in debian-security before. I fixed the 1.8.4
> > package once, it got rejected, and I tried to have 2.0.x installed in
> > Stable, but ofcours
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:28:18AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Oh and it didn't even want to start properly -- and the init script wasn't
> > even so kind to tell me, I had to learn from syslog that
> > Aug 24 16:57:23 hostname snort: FATAL ERROR:
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 08:59:06AM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 03:57:45PM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> >
> > Before you object to this rather 'rude' bughandling, please keep in
> > mind that version 1.8.4 of snort, which is in stable, has 3 severe
> > security exploi
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 12:11:07PM -0400, Noah L. Meyerhans wrote:
> No. New attacks represent security threats. Old attacks represent
> curiosities, at best (i.e. have you seen any Redhat 6.2 rpc.statd attacks
> lately?)
>
> An intrusion detection system that can not detect known intrusions is
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:24:11AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> This problem only exists for snort packages that aren't going to be
> updated, like the ones that reach stable. The unstable package is up to
> date enough to have all correct rules, imho.
>
> The other thing is, snort.org's people
On Mon, Aug 25, 2003 at 10:29:30AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Jamin W. Collins ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > > Before you object to this rather 'rude' bughandling, please keep in
> > > mind that version 1.8.4 of snort, which is in stable, has 3 severe
> > > security exploits,
> > So, why
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 12:46:45AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Let's first start by telling that my backported packages never made it
> to security updates that every good stable user should have in their apt
> sources. The DSA just pointed users who actually read it to my p.d.o.
> site.
Would
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:40:10AM +0200, Sander Smeenk wrote:
> Quoting Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > What are these bugs exactly?
>
> If i recall correctly, it was two memory allocation faults in the RPC
> code, and one in the fragmented packet reassambly code.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:47:12AM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> Well, _something_ threw dpkg off, because it doesn't always prompt
> erroneously. Trouble is, we are never able to locate the culprit... :(
http://bugs.debian.org/108587
lists some situations where this can happen.
--
- mdz
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 04:34:58PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>
> > If I report "segmentation fault in ls", I--as a user of ls, not a
> > developer--couldn't care less about why it was segfaulting or how the
> > bug was fixed; I only care that it's been f
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 08:36:16AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > Right. I understood both points. I was wondering about having the bug
> > submitter there. Maybe change the phrasing?
>
> I usually don't list him/her, my changelogs are to
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 02:39:01PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 08:36:16AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
>
> > Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...]
> > > Right. I understood both points. I was wondering about having the bug
&g
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 11:40:34AM +1000, jason andrade wrote:
> Is there any way to reduce the size of the archive over the next
> 4-6 weeks ?
Drop potato?
--
- mdz
On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
> A quick summary of this bug:
> Arson, a KDE CD burning application, includes two .desktop files to
> associate certain files with it:
> /usr/share/mimelnk/application/x-iso.desktop
> /usr/share/mimelnk/application/x-cue.desktop
And p
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 11:05:40PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am the (new) maintainer of bcm5700-source, a modules package for the
> broadcom gigabit adapter. The final package, bcm5700-module-${KVERS},
> includes a manpage, /usr/share/man/man4/bcm5700.4.gz. I just now ran into
> the proble
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 12:18:26AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003.08.31.0013 +0200]:
> > If you want two different versions of documentation, they need to
> > be named differently. Alternatively, you can just split the
&
On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 08:06:18PM -0500, Chris Cheney wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2003 at 06:08:17PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 29, 2003 at 10:34:39PM -0700, Mike Markley wrote:
> >
> > > A quick summary of this bug:
> > > Arson, a KDE CD
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:23:46PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I list the submitter when they have provided a patch, so as to provide for
> > attribution, and therefore credit or blame, as appropriate.
>
> Wel
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:27:16PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Listing random upstream changes in debian/changelog just because they
> happen to fix bugs in the Debian BTS makes no sense.
It makes sense to me, and I do it whenever possible. It is valuable to
include in the Debian changelog inform
On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 07:32:45PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 17-Aug-03, 17:11 (CDT), Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'd hoped to get the suggestions here and Solar Designer's work
> > incorporated tested, and uploaded before I left on a 2 week vacation,
> > but I'm not go
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 11:34:02PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> The FHS is not clear on whether it is OK to put a script in /var/run.
>
> If a program wants to create a script and then run it, where should it be
> placed? Red Hat has apmd creating such scripts under /var/run. Is this
> corre
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 07:34:07AM +0200, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> I would like to preserve that, especially /tmp and /var/tmp i would not
> like to see executable.
noexec /tmp and /var/tmp seem to create far more problems than they solve.
--
- mdz
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 08:33:26AM +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > for ct in * ; do
> > chown $ct:crontab $ct
> > done
> [...]
> And lets add a user with homedir "`rm -rf ..`" just for fun.
That command line has nothing to do
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 10:48:36AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> On 03-Sep-03, 01:33 (CDT), Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > And lets add a user with homedir "`rm -rf ..`" just for fun.
>
> I'm missing something here. What does the user's homedir have to do with
> anything?
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 05:20:54PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/tmp/bar% bash
> > bash-2.05b$ L=`find`
> > bash-2.05b$ for i in $L; do echo $i; done
> > .
> > ./a
> > b
>
> No wonder. You aren't quoting correctly! Use 'echo "$i"'.
there:[~] /bin/bash
[EMAIL PRO
On Wed, Sep 03, 2003 at 01:40:51PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > there:[~] /bin/bash
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ foo="a b"
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ for x in $foo; do echo "$x"; done
>
> &
source?
Thanks!
Also, please reply to me and/or cc the list as I am not subscribed.
- --
Matt
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7D81740A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/WAReZosHVX2BdAoRAnBvAJ9qsGc5TH6puukXVugxmZtkOau78ACghXNG
Dj643Z
ags to a compile?
Thanks for any help you or pointers you can give me on this
- --
Matt
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7D81740A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE/WUFLZosHVX2BdAoRAvxoAJ9AiiD+6humhJ2K7f34MXjE/g3WXgCePVri
cSCoRPLcLCBjE+n2BZMOiMw=
=CgWB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
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 i
On Sat, Sep 06, 2003 at 11:40:34AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Saturday 06 September 2003 07:34, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > You cannot hope to write a script smart enough to modify an arbitrary
> > debian/rules to do what you want. What you need to do is to come up wi
401 - 500 of 1069 matches
Mail list logo
