foo-dev depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})
> libfoobar depends on libfoo (= ${Source-Version})
No, it's not a problem, it's just confusing due to the naming of this
variable "Source-Version", and I would encourage you to use the new
binary:Version variable instead.
--
Steve Lan
use for this purpose.
There is an interface (currently encapsulated in the common maintainer
script code shared by PHP extensions) for adding and removing extensions to
php.ini, but that's it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Develop
?
No, there is no interface at all that you're permitted to use in packages
for adding your own sections to php.ini.
I wasn't aware that php5 now had a --with-config-file-scan-dir option.
Please file a bug against php5 requesting its inclusion.
--
Steve Langasek Give me
e your
best judgement here, as to whether including that source will be important
to you as the maintainer or to users wishing to modify/reuse the package.
Děkuju,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on,
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 04:13:07AM +0300, Guillem Jover wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 15:11:23 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The documentation for this probably belongs in debian-policy; current
> > versions of policy seem to mention Source-Version, though, not the new
> > s
copy from thailatex.
- By avoiding any use of the preinst, we also avoid any rollback
requirements.
Completely untested in real-world conditions, let me know if you find I've
screwed something up :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debia
ted
> > files, and as a result give us a $TEXDIR/babel.sty file that we're
> > assured
> > of being the copy from thailatex.
> I'm not so sure about this. Should the final mv be guarded with
> "if [ -e $TEXDIR/babel.sty.undivert]"
dle the w-b settings for all archs at once.
Anyway, cleared for arm and sparc now.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] htt
can, if he wishes,
permit you to distribute the original under the same terms as the copies.
I don't think that requiring a statement telling recipients where to get the
original work is onerous or non-free, but it's the only thing that stands
out, so I figured I'd point it out anyway.
ty* from the Essential
system, yes. (We have removed individual packages from Essential, because
their functionality was moved to a different package due to
renames/splits/merges.)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer t
ts own that *no*, are not bugs in individual
packages that "can and should be addressed individually." --as-needed will
always get the answer wrong in certain cases, because it's a heuristic.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian D
ibfoo.so.1.2.3 ?
No, .so.x.y.z is the traditional format; embedding the library version in
the part of the name before the .so is a relatively new innovation that
hasn't been adopted too widely outside of certain circles (such as GNOME).
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever lon
such a change in the not so
distant past, and no one noticed except the LSB folks, who were using
dlopen() to try to check the ABI...
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move
ms built against the old library but now using the new one?
They'll still work just fine. This actually happens quite frequently with
private symbols that were never meant to be exported as part of the
library's ABI and have never been included in the published API.
Cheers,
--
Steve
y the buildds were able to build the package
> without explizitly knowing about the needed libattr1-dev build-dep?
proftpd build-depends on libacl1-dev, which depends on libattr1-dev.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer
sense he means, it just lets you reverse a
commit with a later one.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
the 32-bit archs, instead of "any".
But wouldn't it be fine to just drop this binary package on all archs? I
seem to remember that liferea-gtkhtml has had other problems on all archs in
the past, and that the -xulrunner variant was recommended?
--
Steve Langasek G
ferea-gtkhtml package or make it
an empty package depending on liferea-xulrunner, rather than to risk getting
package relationships wrong when merging the contents. Please go for one of
those first options.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough a
the main binary
> package. You'll need to place the SOs in /usr/lib/$PACKAGE, of course.
No, you should *not* put libraries into subdirectories of /usr/lib
unnecessarily.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:36:13PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 12:48:21PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:10:06PM -, Paul Cager wrote:
> > > On Mon, February 19, 2007 1:38 pm, Sam Morris wrote:
> > > > I am
f that package is not the correct answer here?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 01:10:01PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 17:31 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 08:23:46PM -0400, Muammar Wadih El Khatib Rodriguez
> > wrote:
> > > I uploaded a new upstream version of a package which
ebconf error that you
get? What is the postinst code that's failing? (I've downloaded your
diff.gz at this point, but I don't see any obvious errors in it...)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on
On Sat, Mar 24, 2007 at 12:03:03PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> > FWIW, you're likely to get better feedback if you help make it easier for
> > people to see the problem you're having. What is the debconf error that you
> > get? What is t
placing yada with something non-bletcherous. TTBOMK, the only person
willfully using yada for official Debian packages is the yada author.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTE
h dh_pycentral; I have never seen
dh_pycentral set these permissions on directories, so the permissions
probably come from the upstream install rules. Are you calling dh_fixperms
from your debian/rules?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
De
server, you can't
> get rid of the comment by any other means than making a new key. If it
> hasn't been uploaded to a public keyserver, you can remove the UID.
Right.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free
sources. Does anyone know a solution
> to this?
Ask upstream to provide a cleaner tarball for next time? You could reroll
the upstream tarball with a distinguishing Debian version number, but I
don't think it's worth it at all for this.
But that's why this is a warning, not an erro
nyone tell me with what I should replace this function?
libpam.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
riate use of PHP than nanoweb.
Maybe you missed the php-qt ITP then?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.o
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 06:26:01PM +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote:
> On Sunday 6 May 2007 17:43, David Paleino wrote:
> > Now, as Steve Langasek pointed out in that bug report:
> > "PHP is GPL-incompatible. You cannot distribute GPL software together with
> > GPL-inc
On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 04:55:58PM -0500, Raphael wrote:
> On 06/05/07, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sun, May 06, 2007 at 05:40:37PM +0100, Neil Williams wrote:
> >> If Ubuntu want nanoweb they are welcome to it. I see no reason to haul
> >> thi
providing the schema file (a
bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..)
- use alternatives or a diversion to decide which package's schema file will
be available under the named location (only appropriate if the two
packages have identical schema file contents)
--
Steve Langasek
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 12:35:24PM -0700, John Stamp wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - have both packages depend on a common file providing the schema
> > file (a bit heavy of a solution for a single schema file..)
> What if I split lastfm into 'la
nyway with both a binNMU of e2fsprogs
and a subsequent maintainer upload, so I think this bug can be closed rather
than reassigned.
Thanks,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move th
to build your binaries as 64-bit -- but given that Debian still (for the
moment) supports 32-bit sparcs too, building your binaries as 64-bit has the
one advantage that this would pick up a dependency on libc6-sparc64 to make
it clear to sparc users that it's not suitable for 32-bit machine
not subscribed to
> debian-mentors.
I don't see any point in trying to upload this right now, when the package's
build dependencies (aolserver4) aren't installable on the buildds?
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=aolserver4-nsimap&arch=alpha&ver=3.1-3%2Bb1&s
ng gcc in line with the standard, so
there shouldn't really be much cause for worry in that regard.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
not safe under symbol
versioning, using symbol versioning should be the default policy. Even if
only packages linking against the new version of the lib pick up the symbol
versioning, it can still make a *huge* difference in the quality of the
user's experience.
--
Steve La
find it an annoying split, since over its lifetime libgd has had correct
shlibs and reasonable -dev packages only about a quarter of the time, and I
don't think xpm is so heavy that we should be concerned about the size
impact on users' machines.
--
Steve Langasek Give m
because I think the -noxpm stuff is pointless, but it's
equally pointless to link against libraries you know you won't use. :)
Anyway, building against libgd2-noxpm-dev will get you a proper dependency
that will be satisfied by either the xpm or the noxpm version of libgd.
Cheers,
--
Ste
small subset of entries in /etc/fstab.
Why in the world is this something that needs an entire package to itself?
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 10:46:16AM +0200, Francesco Namuri wrote:
> Il giorno sab, 02/06/2007 alle 17.43 -0700, Steve Langasek ha scritto:
> > On Sun, Jun 03, 2007 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Francesco Namuri wrote:
> > > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "ntfs-config&
be beneficial if prospective uploaders would hold off on uploading
this package for a couple of days, to let the remaining architectures catch
up (the binaries are already built on the autobuilders, and just need to be
uploaded & propagated).
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a
s nature.
'fakeroot dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot' is a double-invocation of fakeroot
which may fail altogether.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
the effort that goes into the debugging is worthy of
recognition. This is obviously not the case here, I couldn't care less if
you credit me for this change. :)
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set
r
the changelog entry and append to it.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
at's more than enough.
That doesn't address the incorrect dependency on the *webserver*, which is
what Nacho was pointing out.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PR
(because php4-cgi is not in depends
> of virtual package php4 in sarge):
Which makes it not particularly relevant to newly-packaged software. In
fact, you can pretty much drop the 'php4' alternative altogether now, since
php5 was in etch and php4 won't be in lenny.
--
Steve Lan
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 03:07:23PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:47:41PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 07:12:47PM +0200, Gregory Colpart wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 06:06:14PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
>
r package so that the build rules
notice, and treat it as a fatal error, if key files go missing. That won't
directly answer the question of why the package in the archive is wrong, but
it will make the task of tracking down the bug in your sponsor's devel
environment a bit easier.
Cheer
.
> would it be practical to get a lint to pick up this kind of thing ?
> (might be a good idea anyway)
It's not something that I would consider it a priority to work on, in the
case of existing packages; I'm just pointing out why adding "| php4" for new
packages isn't
o-step upgrade of some variety:
either holding ia32-libs back until after the dist-upgrade, or upgrading the
package manager before the dist-upgrade.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the wor
; So to me the most appealing solution would be to drop the lib32v4l
> packages altogether and let those users that need the conversion
> install and configure these packages by hand.
That would be my recommendation.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 11:11:13AM -0300, gustavo panizzo wrote:
> updated package can be found at
> http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/o/openldap/openldap_2.4.31-1.1.dsc
This is not the correct procedure for an NMU. Please send a debdiff to the
bug report.
--
Steve La
.
This change should not be uploaded to unstable.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 12:04:17AM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I am wondering what to do next: should I pursue a 14-day delayed NMU?
> Do nothing and hope some of my changes are picked up?
An unsanctioned NMU of a new upstream version of a Priority: required
package? No.
--
Steve La
ch, as you
know, is currently waiting for confirmation of the final multiarch db
layout).
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www
that you intend to go on record as sponsoring this NM,
not on grounds of familiarity with his work, but because you're opposed
to the existence of a central authority that decides who is given
developer access?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpWqN7r8jhrq.pgp
Description: PGP signature
he Debian archive. Sourceforge has certainly been
compromised in the past, and remains a high profile target; I wouldn't
want to see it used as a conduit for getting compromised software into
Debian.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpJDp7H5JcQi.pgp
Description: PGP signature
tions, recently
discussed on debian-legal) and accurate as to the identity of the
copyright holders and the date of their copyrights. In that sense it is
likely to be verbatim, if only because there are only so many ways you
can express a copyright notice.
Otherwise, this seems co
oon as there's
a fixed version seems to be the most effective way to manage bugs in the
BTS, generally speaking.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpyhyskMM9ZY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
g to sponser this package for me?
Do you have documentation to show that we have a license to distribute
this package (bug #156057)?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpMlWQIjs0vv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 10:28:16PM -0400, Tommy Moore wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 06:37:40PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Do you have documentation to show that we have a license to distribute
> > this package (bug #156057)?
> Hi Steve. I took a look at the copyright f
to the increased coordination required. While Debian
isn't exactly collapsing yet, it is important to pay attention to the
growth of the distribution.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp1v4onYhiCP.pgp
Description: PGP signature
eam has recently
switched to Bugzilla for their own public bug tracking. YMMV. :)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpL8Ibqu1nAj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
istributed by Debian." If they're distributed by
Debian, they are by definition NOT third party, and therefore cannot
touch /opt.
> I'll think about it some more, but I'm not convinced that the concept
> of breaking it up into /usr/share, /usr/lib, /usr/bin can work. At best,
> we might be able to put everything under /usr/share/iraf and use
> symlinks to satisfy the policy.
This has been done before; see mailman for a well-executed example.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgp9MRlStAfVW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
the NM process is usually more than
sufficient. I say, go for it.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpHxN3SFH7Bb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
*or* 5) doesn't already have?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
UID root, then the package is almost certainly buggy.
Please use a privileged audio device user instead; I'm aware of no
reason that audio software should need general root privileges.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
when somebody
> accidently installs it on a machine using nfs for /usr.
> As I don't use nfs at all, I don't know how to figure this out safely
> during configure. Can you point me to the right place?
Can you explain in more detail how the call to 'stat&#x
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 05:45:31PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >> As I don't use nfs at all, I don't know how to figure this out safely
> >> during configure. Can you point me to the right place?
> > Can
tion
> file, and thus it belongs there. But to preserve the possibility of
> local additions, I would like to find a way for co-existence of
> debconf-managed and manually-edited parts.
I would say that, even though this is a cop-out, it's a better solution
than what's in place for tetex today.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpXjqvzK1iIY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 06:36:14PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> >> The problem with that is, as pointed out in the bug report, is that now
> >> both the debconf database and language.dat are under /var, where backups
> &
8 didn't need any *help* being kept out of
sarge. Which bug are you referring to?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpWqwtkXqYTN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ed to the file list for one of the packages.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpr5qmyy4xCN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 09:37:19PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> fyi
Er, why did this warrant reposting on a list for answering novice
developer questions?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
> -Forwarded Message-
> > From: Andreas Tille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
&g
ts own target, the rules could just be included under
'build-arch'; but having a separate 'build-aboot' target might make the
conditional easier to read).
And thanks for working on this bug. If you need another set of eyeballs
on your rules once you have them put together, let me know.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a different file, but if the server is local, anyone with
> root access can just delete the database by hand anyhow.
This solution has a prerequisite of the package postinst script being
permitted to *create* such a user, as well as granting it the desired
privileges. This hardly seems a
ackage is quite insistent on not letting go of it, even though the
only upload in the last 6 months (at least) has been an NMU. The
history of this package is fairly well documented in bug #202174.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
movals listed on ftp-master.debian.org, or listed
separately? (Or not at all?)
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpubYrOmm1Lx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
ystem, and does NOT require running X; and there are many other
packages that will depend on xlibs that users will want installed on
non-X-using systems, so the per-package net impact is much less
. I don't see any reason for splitting this into a separate package.
Regards,
--
Steve Langas
dings, you'd better know precisely how the input is
> encoded.
The best heuristic is to first check whether it's valid UTF-8, and if it
isn't, convert it from latin-1 to UTF-8. This correctly detects the
vast majority of texts; but if what you want is UTF-8, it's always
better
browser bugs of any kind.
Best of luck,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
pgpBFxdrYRSyt.pgp
Description: PGP signature
no provision
for state files (persistent or not) that are available prior to /var
being mounted. Discussion of this issue on debian-devel was extensive
last year, but it seems the farthest it got was "get the FHS to sanction
it, then we'll consider it".
--
Steve Langasek
po
e something with
> threads).
It is definitely a case of missing references to libpthread. The bug is
in /usr/lib/lam/lib/liblam.so, which should be linked against libpthread
if it depends on it.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ts own package. Submitting it
for inclusion with gs upstream seems like a good idea. Otherwise, I
think the vast majority of users who can't figure out the ghostscript
commandline on their own (including myself) will cope with the
inefficiencies of pdftk just fine.
--
Steve Langasek
post
ner is actively
involved with addressing precisely these issues upstream), it should
soon no longer be necessary to make such a choice.
But shipping .la files in non-dev packages should still be a hanging
offense.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ligated to support
every stone age library implementation available doesn't mean Debian
should. Tolerating such known-buggy designs would erode one of Debian's
greatest strengths as a platform.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
er static lib was current
at the time would be the one provided by this library.
With no shared library, there would be no non-dev lib package.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 07:22:13PM +0200, Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 03, 2004 at 11:14:22AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > Well I thought about it, but this doesn't solve every my doubt.
> > > How could I name this package? Are there any policies ab
ckage that is being uploaded to
the archive *was* built on sid, not just that it could have been.
For sponsored uploads, this is usually not an issue, since the sponsor
ought to be doing a rebuild from source before uploading.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 12:02:44PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >No, you also have to be sure that the package that is being uploaded to
> >the archive *was* built on sid, not just that it could have been.
> >For sponsored uploads, this is usuall
On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 12:33:35PM -0600, Benjamin Cutler wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:
> >IIRC, the --distribution argument only has an effect the first time you
> >run 'pbuilder create'.
> What should I have done instead to ensure the program was being built
y for the packages
> > uploaded to the archive.
> But WHY ???
Because to do otherwise makes diffs of debian/changelog a PITA.
Including a debian/ dir in CVS is reasonable. Including it in an
upstream source release is not.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ll.
It would still be a bug to turn on -O3 optimization when you don't know
what you're doing (which is to say, in the vast majority of cases),
whether or not it actually trips a compiler bug in the process.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
to libgds.so? What does 'file' say about the format of this file, if
dpkg-shlibdeps doesn't recognize it?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
; /usr/lib/libgds.so.0: ELF 32-bit LSB shared object, Intel 80386, version 1
> (SYSV), stripped
> It is in one of these packages libfirebird-c32, libfirebird-s64,
> libfirebird-s32, libfirebird-c64 which are orphaned. See
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=237532
> Is i
ated.
FWIW, I'm not sure this kind of question is appropriate for
debian-mentors; surely this would be better on debian-devel?
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
ges
that block its removal, as per the update_output.txt report.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
101 - 200 of 604 matches
Mail list logo
