On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Martin Godisch wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 08:12:57 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Martin Godisch wrote:
> > > dh_installinit adds 'invoke-rc.d start' (or: init.d/package start) to
> > > postinst, hence, after dpkg-reconfigure is run, po
On Saturday 09 November 2002 19:08, Marc Nozell wrote:
> I'm starting to package up a tool and have some questions about
> 'pristine source'.
>
> * The upstream author only distributes as a ZIP file. Since
> dpkg-buildpackage, dh_make, etc only understand .tar.gz files,
> is it acceptable for
I'm starting to package up a tool and have some questions about
'pristine source'.
* The upstream author only distributes as a ZIP file. Since
dpkg-buildpackage, dh_make, etc only understand .tar.gz files,
is it acceptable for me to grab the .zip, unpackage it, create
a tar.gz and then st
I'm starting to package up a tool and have some questions about
'pristine source'.
* The upstream author only distributes as a ZIP file. Since
dpkg-buildpackage, dh_make, etc only understand .tar.gz files,
is it acceptable for me to grab the .zip, unpackage it, create
a tar.gz and then st
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:21:20AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The escputil package was in section misc, but should have been in
> section utils (a bug was filed to request this). I changed this, but
> there has been no change in the section in the archive, I assume
> because the overrides weren't
The escputil package was in section misc, but should have been in
section utils (a bug was filed to request this). I changed this, but
there has been no change in the section in the archive, I assume
because the overrides weren't changed.
Do I need to file a bug against something, or notify someo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> What about ACT not fixing bugs in the GNAT public releases?
They do fix them, but they have extremely long release cycles.
> What about them not caring at all for bugs reported in the
> BTS and not sending any patch?
Only two of the bug reports
Hi.
I need a sponsor to upload fresher versions of openag and facturalux. Both
packages are in Debian repository, but they need some bug fixes.
So, any of you can upload them?
If so, please contact me.
Thanks and regards.
--
Juan Manuel García Molina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 12:21:20AM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> The escputil package was in section misc, but should have been in
> section utils (a bug was filed to request this). I changed this, but
> there has been no change in the section in the archive, I assume
> because the overrides weren't
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I would like to adopt the gnat package.
>
> What about gnat-doc? There are a number of problems with it (non-free
> license, wrong copyright information in general, the RM should be
> separate).
What about A
The escputil package was in section misc, but should have been in
section utils (a bug was filed to request this). I changed this, but
there has been no change in the section in the archive, I assume
because the overrides weren't changed.
Do I need to file a bug against something, or notify someo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jérôme Marant) writes:
> What about ACT not fixing bugs in the GNAT public releases?
They do fix them, but they have extremely long release cycles.
> What about them not caring at all for bugs reported in the
> BTS and not sending any patch?
Only two of the bug reports
Hi.
I need a sponsor to upload fresher versions of openag and facturalux. Both
packages are in Debian repository, but they need some bug fixes.
So, any of you can upload them?
If so, please contact me.
Thanks and regards.
--
Juan Manuel García Molina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
Jon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to adopt the gnat package.
What about gnat-doc? There are a number of problems with it (non-free
license, wrong copyright information in general, the RM should be
separate).
Hi. I hope I'm in the right place.
Since I'm going to be building a bunch of programs anyway, I would
like to build packages optimized for my particular machine, with the
compiler getting -march=athlon as well as -O3 (unless the latter is
not safe; I'm using gcc 2.95.4).
What is the debian way t
Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I would like to adopt the gnat package.
>
> What about gnat-doc? There are a number of problems with it (non-free
> license, wrong copyright information in general, the RM should be
> separate).
What about A
* Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021108 09:52]:
> * Put a debconf message into the package warning that the behaviour
> has changed. Write one init script. Allow the user to configure
> which daemons start at boot-time by editing /etc/default/cfengine2
> which contains RUN_CFEXECD=0
Jon Ward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to adopt the gnat package.
What about gnat-doc? There are a number of problems with it (non-free
license, wrong copyright information in general, the RM should be
separate).
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "un
Hi. I hope I'm in the right place.
Since I'm going to be building a bunch of programs anyway, I would
like to build packages optimized for my particular machine, with the
compiler getting -march=athlon as well as -O3 (unless the latter is
not safe; I'm using gcc 2.95.4).
What is the debian way t
* Andrew Stribblehill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [021108 09:52]:
> * Put a debconf message into the package warning that the behaviour
> has changed. Write one init script. Allow the user to configure
> which daemons start at boot-time by editing /etc/default/cfengine2
> which contains RUN_CFEXECD=0
[Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- see Mail-Followup-To:]
Can anyone check if #168383 (buffer overflow in osh, a setuid root shell)
is exploitable? If it is, we may need a DSA.
--
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian developer
PGP key (key ID F464A695) http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohar
Martin Godisch wrote:
> I do not upgrade, dpkg-reconfigure doesn't call prerm...
Look again.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>grep prerm =dpkg-reconfigure
foreach my $info (['prerm','upgrade', $version],
--
see shy jo
pgp58jOS4Ok1X.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Martin Godisch wrote:
> dh_installinit adds 'invoke-rc.d start' (or: init.d/package start) to
> postinst, hence, after dpkg-reconfigure is run, postinst will try to
> start an already running service, start-stop-daemon will fail, and the
> daemon will not reload its new configuration.
>
> What's t
[Please reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- see Mail-Followup-To:]
Can anyone check if #168383 (buffer overflow in osh, a setuid root shell)
is exploitable? If it is, we may need a DSA.
--
Oohara Yuuma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Debian developer
PGP key (key ID F464A695) http://www.interq.or.jp/libra/oohar
Martin Godisch wrote:
> I do not upgrade, dpkg-reconfigure doesn't call prerm...
Look again.
joey@dragon:~>grep prerm =dpkg-reconfigure
foreach my $info (['prerm','upgrade', $version],
--
see shy jo
msg07790/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Martin Godisch wrote:
> dh_installinit adds 'invoke-rc.d start' (or: init.d/package start) to
> postinst, hence, after dpkg-reconfigure is run, postinst will try to
> start an already running service, start-stop-daemon will fail, and the
> daemon will not reload its new configuration.
>
> What's t
#include
* Junichi Uekawa [Thu, Nov 07 2002, 05:26:09AM]:
> > But the plan is to move all architectures to gcc-3.2 for sarge.
> > I don't know why this hasn't happened already.
>
> That at least requires working gcc-3.2 and hence probably working
> glibc 2.3 for all arches, which has not happened
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Martin Godisch wrote:
> dh_installinit adds 'invoke-rc.d start' (or: init.d/package start) to
> postinst, hence, after dpkg-reconfigure is run, postinst will try to
> start an already running service, start-stop-daemon will fail, and the
> daemon will not reload its new configu
#include
* Junichi Uekawa [Thu, Nov 07 2002, 05:26:09AM]:
> > But the plan is to move all architectures to gcc-3.2 for sarge.
> > I don't know why this hasn't happened already.
>
> That at least requires working gcc-3.2 and hence probably working
> glibc 2.3 for all arches, which has not happened
On Sat, 09 Nov 2002, Martin Godisch wrote:
> dh_installinit adds 'invoke-rc.d start' (or: init.d/package start) to
> postinst, hence, after dpkg-reconfigure is run, postinst will try to
> start an already running service, start-stop-daemon will fail, and the
> daemon will not reload its new configu
30 matches
Mail list logo
