On Mon, May 10, 1999 at 02:28:57PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > 2.1.4. The non-free section
> > ---
> >
> > `Non-free' contains packages which are not compliant with the DFSG
> > or which are encumbered by legal issues which render the software's
> > distri
Joseph Carter wrote:
> I propose the above be removed right away. Software covered by patents
> is in no way non-free. Just because where _I_ live has stupid laws which
> allow things like the lzw algorithm to be patented (seperately and by two
> seperate companies no less) doesn't mean people in
Previously Guy Maor wrote:
> Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
I was wondering why nobody from the m68k-camp started complaining here,
since I remember James Troup saying that m68k wouldn't switch to
glibc2.1 for some time?
Wichert.
--
===
Previously Jean Pierre LeJacq wrote:
> I have two concerns:
>
>* The proliferation of users/groups.
We're not the first doing this. I think RH6 also has a utmp group for
the same purpose. Anyway for security purposes I'll be happy to support
another user/group anytime.
Wichert.
--
On Mon, 10 May 1999, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> > Shouldn't that use `/etc/init.d/apache reload' instead? Most things,
> > as far as I know, will work that way, sed -e 's/apache/$DAEMON/'. I
> > think it would be good to display the /etc/init.d/* method in this
> > policy item, as a way of do
On May 10, Joel Klecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That is not correct, the UNIX98 pty interface in glibc 2.1 does not
>require a 2.2 kernel. grantpt() can use BSD ptys and the pt_chown
>program in the absence of kernel support for UNIX98 ptys.
So that means if I have /dev/pts I can chmod -s
On May 10, Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Being that logrotate is my package, I second the proposal. Note the
Will logrotate be an essential package?
--
ciao,
Marco
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 10:21:18PM -0700, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> A FLIPPANT OFFTOPIC POSTING is one such as the one I mailed earlier
> this week that probably has no place here. I will try and refrain
> from doing so in the future. This is a serious forum, and we ought to
> stick to business.
> "Balazs" == Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Balazs> So the line "kill -HUP `cat /var/run/apache.pid`" should
Balazs> read:
Balazs> /etc/init.d/apache restart
Yes, I think so. See that others concur.
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 12:56:32AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 2.5.0.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> I just wanted to add my proposal to the BTS. Discussion started on
> Wed, 28 Apr 1999, and there have been 4 seconders:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTE
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 09:25:43PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> >> I am not entirely convinced that it is correct to knock
> >> SSLeay/OpenSSL to non-free merely because of a patent (the holder of
> >> the patent would have us believe it is valid worldwide, which is BS,
> >> since no such thing as
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 22:14:51 -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> We also have to come up with some way to get /dev/pts/ mounted
> automatically, right?
No. Libc6 2.1.1-0.2 and newer already have a way (/etc/init.d/devpts.sh).
Ray
--
UNFAIR Term applied to advantages enjoyed by other people which we
> bazsi> Here is a good example for a logrotate config file
> bazsi> (for more information see logrotate(8)):
>
> bazsi> /var/log/apache/* {
> bazsi>[...]
> bazsi>kill -HUP `cat /var/run/apache.pid`
> bazsi>endscript
>
> "bazsi" == bazsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
bazsi> Here is a good example for a logrotate config file
bazsi> (for more information see logrotate(8)):
bazsi> /var/log/apache/* {
bazsi>[...]
bazsi>kill -HUP `cat /var/run/apache.p
> "Ossama" == Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ossama> Hi, Where do we stand on my proposal to include `.la'
Ossama> files in `-dev' packages?
I thought it sounded like a good idea, but refrained from seconding
since I don't feel qualified... I was hoping folks with more
Divide and conquer?
> "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Manoj> I hereby formally object to this proposal, as I think this
Manoj> is something that merely add bureaucracy to the list, and
Manoj> shall do little to actually increase throughtput.
Not to mention there isn't (yet?)
A FLIPPANT OFFTOPIC POSTING is one such as the one I mailed earlier
this week that probably has no place here. I will try and refrain
from doing so in the future. This is a serious forum, and we ought to
stick to business.
At 14:51 -0700 1999-05-09, Joseph Carter wrote:
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 05:30:26PM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
>Very few stayed in main, but you can check the exact numbers yourself.
Mostly due to SSLeay/OpenSSL being compiled with IDEA support, IIRC.
I am not entirely convinced that it is corr
At 19:15 -0400 1999-05-09, Michael Stone wrote:
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 04:03:01PM -0700, Guy Maor wrote:
Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
Which reminds me, we should probably make it clear that 2.0 kernels will
not work properly with potato if we do this.
They won't work proper
At 16:03 -0700 1999-05-09, Guy Maor wrote:
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This seems like *such* an obvious solution to so many problems that I
find myself perplexed why this hasn't done before, by others.
Because it requires glibc 2.1 and kernel 2.2.
That is not correct, the UNIX
Michael Stone wrote:
> Which reminds me, we should probably make it clear that 2.0 kernels will
> not work properly with potato if we do this. Maybe a big blinking orange
> sign during installation or something. :)
Hm, the only ill effect will be that people won't show up in wtmp, it won't
entirel
Or the script could simply test and run like the init.d scripts do.
On 09-May-99 Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
>
> What if a package is installed, and puts a script in a run-parts
> directory or into a .d directory, but isn't configured due to a
> missing dependancy? The newbie "sysadmin" doesn't know
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 03:19:19AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Now that we have working Unix98 ptys for all systems (except m68k,
> which doesn't want to move to glibc2.1 for some reason?) we no longer
> need to make a process setuid root just to create
24 matches
Mail list logo
