In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sylvain LE GALL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 15, 2003 at 01:37:44PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 04:27:03PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> > In one of the package i maitain i have a config script which begin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2. "defaultdelivery" is to generic. Delivery of what?
>>
>> How about /etc/default/mailbox
>
>># Format (Maildir, MH, mbox, mbx)
>>INBOX_FORMAT=Maildir
>
>Ok.
>
>What is mbx?
It's an indexed mbox, used by wu-imapd. Exim has su
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.magma.com.ni/~jorge/proposal/delivery.html
1. Files in /etc/default use KEY=VALUE format, so keep it that way
2. "defaultdelivery" is to generic. Delivery of what?
How about /etc/default/mailbox
# Format (Maildir,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>As it was talked in Debconf2, we would be better off if we renamed all
>*-rc.d utilities (invoke-rc.d, policy-rc.d, update-rc.d) to rc.d-*
>(rc.d-invoke, rc.d-policy, rc.d-update).
Is there documentation onlin
According to Grant Bowman:
> * Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020507 09:07]:
> > If your package is a .lsb package, then it should follow the LSB.
> > However, it appears your package is a .deb package, so why should
> > it follow the LSB?
>
> Hi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Small <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello,
> I have got bug #138251 which talks about the init.d script and how it
>is missing some nices things etc.
>
>Should Debian scripts be following the LSB and if so, why doesn't the
>policy either mention the LSB or have
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020107 12:39]:
>> Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >* Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020106 22:23]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020106 22:23]:
>> Yes, but the spec is talking about *.lsb packages, NOT about
>> *.deb or *.rpm packages. Those don't have to be changed.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Grant Bowman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, "Init files shall accept one argument, saying what to do" with
>all of {start, stop, restart, reload, force-reload, status} being
>listed. This indicates to me that this is a required change to be LSB
>compliant an
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>>
>> Well no, packages in .lsb that have an /etc/init.d/initscript must
>> support the 'status' option but Debian
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry:
> > If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move
> > all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen.
> > Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install
> > .lsb files *as well*
>
> we can support the inst
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We
>would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts.
>Then there is the call for specific versions of glibc and a few
According to Anthony Towns:
> On Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 12:51:05PM +0000, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > >(it usually is not, and it definitely is not for
> > >tipical POP servers).
> > Still, deleting messages from a mbox-style mailbox means copying
> > the enti
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >2. Benchmarking mbox versus maildir
> > http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/
>This has to be a joke. Everybody who knows something about mail servers
>can tell UW-* programs suck. The benchmark only confirms this,
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that in order to take full advantage of capabilities, files should
>not be owned by root. Files should be owned by a non-login user (e.g. bin).
That would not be a logical step. Right now p
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Nicol=E1s_Lichtmaier?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I wonder if you're read linux-kernel recently, resource forks definitely
>> will never be part of (mainstream) Linux. Nasty evil things!
>
> I think that Linus has recently said he wouldn't be oppos
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roland Rosenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Please don't forget that liblockfile 1.01 (didn't see a newer version
>yet) does not provide nfs-safe locking, which violates policy chapter
>5.6. So I dissuade from using liblockfile for MUAs until this problem
>is solv
ebian)
Curious,
Mike.
--
There's a lot to be said for not saying a lot.
--
The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway addresses.
Reply to the list or to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
> > Think of command line arguments, environment variables .. that's
> > all 'user input'
>
> This (command line arguments, environment variables) is
> what i checked in manpages.
Never ever trust manpages. Read the source.
> But theres nothing about
> such thin
According to Tomasz Wegrzanowski:
> > But the source might contain a buffer overflow exploit, or another
> > exploit. Yes, I wrote the code myself, and there is even a comment
> > in the code about running setuid in a special group. But in my experience
> > _every_ setuid program has at least one h
According to Seth R Arnold:
> I think this might be debian-specific -- I do remember on other versions of
> unix, and probably even on other linux distributions -- that calling halt or
> reboot directly is a Very Bad Thing, unless things are worse on their own. :)
Well it's pretty much linux-speci
According to Tomasz Wêgrzanowski:
> > Note that 'shutdown' was NOT designed to be run setuid - for all
> > I know it's full of grave security holes if you do. You then not
> > only gave the people in the group 'power' permission to shut down
> > the machine, you just granted them root access as wel
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Tomasz_W=EAgrzanowski?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I suggest a new group `power'
>and setting privileges of shutdown and halt (reboot is symlink to halt) to:
>-rwsr-xr-- 1 root power6876 Jan 12 1999 /sbin/halt
>-rwsr-xr-- 1 root
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can we get liblockfile's program an routines to reliably *fail* when
>it's locking an nfs file?
Sure.
>If so, perhaps we can recommend Maildir/ for people who need to
>put mail on an nfs partition.
Bad idea. Why do you wan
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
>> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
>> fcntl().
>>
>> But only fcnt
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Marco d'Itri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >mbox format mail is not safe over NFS even if there is locking.
>Is not safe if there is a crash, but otherwise it works.
>
> >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 1999, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
>
>> The solution for this problem is to use fcntl(), because Linux 2.2.*
>> flushes the cache of a file in the moment when it is locked using
>> fcntl().
>>
>> But only fcnt
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Miquel van Smoorenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Duh. Compile with -I/usr/src/linux/include.
Ofcourse I just realized that was not a very constructive remark, sorry.
So I'll put in a useful one.
If you compile software like gated, which wa
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I would be extremely happy if Debian decided to drop the new way and
>just join the rest of the distributions with the (admittedly not the
>best way) symlinks. Yes, I've read the rationale for doing it our way,
>but it brea
According to Ben Gertzfield:
> I think both /etc/rcS.d/ and /etc/rc.boot/ have their place, and
> I know personally that /etc/rc.boot/ is far more convenient for
> non-packages that need to start up once on bootup and don't
> want (or care) to know about update-rc.d.
>
> Thoughts?
It sounds more
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm going through my old bug reports, and I remembered people
>telling me /etc/rc.boot/ is obsolete. But I just went to look at
>the new policy (I assume 3.0.0.0 is the latest) and it has the same
>old stuff about /etc/rc.b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>+The files /var/run/utmp, /var/log/wtmp and
>+/var/log/lastlog should be installed writeable by group
>+utmp. Programs who need to modify those files should be installed
>+install setgid u
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I know the Pine 4.x series has issues with perms on mailboxes.
>> This needs to be kept in mind.
I think that's permissions on the mailspool directory, not the mailbox itself.
>The original submitter asked why 660, owned
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Zack Weinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Joel Klecker wrote:
>>The main problem is that 2.0 kernels do not support sigaltstack(),
>>this causes such things as m4 to fail when run on a Linux 2.0 system
>>if it was compiled on a glibc 2.1 system using 2.2 kernel he
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Previously Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> I hate cluttered up root directories. The first thing I do is a
>> rmdir /floppy /initrd; rm /vmlinux and all that stuff since 95%
>> of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
J.H.M. Dassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't think so. Please keep them, or consider moving them under /mnt.
>Personally, I'd think it would be a good idea to have a /zip in addition to
>/floppy.
I hate cluttered up root directories. The first thing I do is a
r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm actually surprised that there seem to be so few dfsg-free imapd
>implementations - it certainly seems like something that's easier to
>do than an smtp daemon, and goodness knows people don't tire of
>reinventing that par
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't want a separate directory for Debian to use. I would like the
>standard directory available for the webmaster to use. Think of
>/cgi-lib/ as an equivalent to /usr/lib/ or /usr/bin/, and /cgi-bin/ as
>an equivalent to
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>> sh script.sh is very different from running it in a subshell with ().
>> For example, bash doesn't really fork a new invocation - it just
>> sets up
According to Martin Schulze:
> Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >So regular *.sh scripts must not contain any "exit" statement.
> > >(which is the case e.g
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So regular *.sh scripts must not contain any "exit" statement.
>(which is the case e.g. for keymap.sh)
Ah, now I remember. This has been solved quite some time ago.
*.sh scripts may contain an "exit" statement, because th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *This is opinion*.
Okay ;)
> I would not have expected the init.d scripts to be generally
> sourced by rc, and woud be surprised not to have them regular
> standalone scripts (I often call them manually, a
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In /etc/* there are severeal scripts that are named *.sh. Most of
>them are not marked executable and don't contain a "#! /bin/sh" line.
>
>Thus, to run them you need to "sh foo.sh" or "source foo.sh" them.
>This raises a
es this. If we
were the biggest one we could pull this off and the rest would follow.
Now we're just going to be "the dist with the weird paths".
If you want to fix something why not get rid of /usr/games? That's
something I've never quite understood.
Mike.
--
Miquel
something similar?
Almost everything in Linux has been modeled after those other
Unices and that is part of Linux's succes.
Also please check with the LSB (or whatever it is called today) guys
before making such an incompatible change.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to spee
on
module with each package, COAS could be used to configure it ...
Chances are that a config module has even already been written.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | Our vision is to speed up time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | eventually eliminating it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTE
ou
> > have an unconfigured sysvinit with the new update-rc.d but an old
> > dpkg ?
>
> Yes, what happens? I'm Cc:ing sysvinit maintainer.
Nothing. the update-rc.d only gets called in the postinst (and postrm) phase,
and that should be after dpkg is configured.
Mike.
--
Miq
://www.debian.org/ or one of its many mirrors.
The Debian Policy Manual is ofcourse also available as a debian package.
Mike.
--
Miquel van Smoorenburg | The dyslexic, agnostic, insomniac lay in his bed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | awake all night wondering if there is a doG
48 matches
Mail list logo
