Hey guys, please ensure to re-read Q22 on this link:
http://www.bxa.doc.gov/Encryption/Oct2KQandAs.html
It sure sounds like IP/DNS mucking is required to
export from the US.
Oh yeah -- please don't CC me on replies. I am subscribed.
Cheers! :)
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000919 11:30]:
> > At the risk of being ostracized for being a smartass, the point of the
> > field isn't for humans; it is for software to make automatic updating of
> > systems easier and less prone to surprises.
>
> Yes, that's exactly my point. You're already s
* Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000918 22:18]:
> If a user sees one package with Urgency-Serial = 1109 and another with
> Urgency-Serial = 10, which will they think is more ugent? It won't
> matter that the first is sendmail and had a bunch of security holes 5 to
> 10 years ago, while the second i
* Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000918 21:16]:
> Now that APT has a pinning mechanism it would be very nice if you could
> automatically install higher urgency upgrades and leave low priority stuff
> behind.
[snip snip snip]
> What do you all think?
Well Jason, I for one am constantly am
Nicolás, my one concern: lets assume a user installs both mutt and
mutt-doc, and mutt-doc installs its docs into /usr/share/doc/mutt.
User says to userself, "why is my /usr/share/doc so big?" A `du' later,
and the mutt docs are the culprit. User thinks to userself, "bummer, I
like mutt, but the on
* Anthony Towns [000501 22:14]:
> On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 01:59:15PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > update-rc.d has no way of knowing if the symlinks in the rc directories
> > aren't there because the local admin removed them, or because the package
> > was just installed.
>
> So you should l
* Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000329 01:47]:
> ---
> The /var/log directory should have permissions 2755 (set-group-id)
> and be owned by root.adm.
> ---
S
* Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000302 10:43]:
> Steve Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > May I suggest that the policy document clearly state that the aim is
> > `compatibility'? For instance, by replacing the quoted sentence with
> > something like:
>
> > Debian packages must be
* Jean-Christophe Dubacq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000301 00:18]:
> local-config tetex would create all /usr/local/ subdirs needed for tetex
> local-config ghostscript would create /usr/local/lib/ghostscript/
> {commmon,5.50}, etc.
This I don't mind at all, though I would hazard that the proper place t
* John Lines <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000229 23:27]:
> How about an /etc/debian.conf or some such which could contain 'meta'
> information about things like this.
I am not a fan of this approach.
When I found SuSE linux, I was thrilled. (Primarily because it could
keep the X root menus in line with w
* Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [000229 00:33]:
> Steve> Well, let's assume that I'm reading too much into this, and that the
> Steve> Policy writers really intended that Debian be fully FHS compliant.
> So the intent was that we shall try to be as compliant as
> possible, without
Indeed, my email client does also display the envelope header as:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Here are the full headers on the email Tomasz sent, as recorded by the email
servers over here.
(Please note, my MTA might ">" in front of the envelope From_ line..)
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Feb 9 15:01:41 2
Here is a proposal, which list subscribers may or may not like, so let me
hear some feedback if you agree or disagree.
On one of our web servers could be a list of binaries in the traditional
PATH without manpages. People could sign up for working on a manpage for a
binary. (Perhaps `executable' i
On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 01:54:08AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Seth" == Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No. But anyone who can't figure what a binary is doing after
> looking at the sources and comments and other docs, and who is
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 09:33:54AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 03:23:27PM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > > "Manoj" == Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Manoj> a) If the maintainer does not know what every binary in the
> > common
> > Manoj> PA
On Wed, Jan 26, 2000 at 12:08:26PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 25 Jan 2000, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>
> > reassign 47298 debian-policy
> > thanks
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > If this is a bug, then it needs to be fixed for all packages,
> > not just libcgi-perl.
> >
> >
> > Marc> Due to
On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 09:10:10PM -0500, Greg Stark wrote:
[...]
> Note that I'm not sure setting things in /etc/environment (or /etc/profile,
> which is a worse idea) really works the way it should. does it override the
> users' preferences saved in their dotfiles? That would be wrong.
Oh yes --
On Sat, Jan 22, 2000 at 03:23:00PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As I remember it from Ol Times (at the time I was one of the mandators that
> > debian should include manual *sources* instead of catmans :) the purpose of
> > undocumented(7) was to signal that a package had
On Thu, Jan 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I would expect that a mantainer have a little knowledge of his package. If
> a binary is not meant to be called by the user, it is a bug to have it in
> the PATH.
Nicolas, this might show my naivite, but where should programs t
s, so I am counting on the regular readers to
help out new-comers to Debian. :)
Thanks
- Forwarded message from Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:32:36 -0800
From: Seth R Arnold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Ian, (IANADD(Y)), but part of me wonders if this isn't the behavior we want;
most debian users have come to expect their debian-supplied packages to
behave a certain way. Allowing the packages to break that 'certain way' with
a one-line entry in the .changes file seems to be opening the floodgates.
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:37:23PM +, Steve Haslam wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:26:03PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > I see... so I think there should be some policy about logrotate...
>
> I agree.
>
> My position, FWIW, is that packages should depend on logrotate unless
> they pr
On Sat, Dec 11, 1999 at 01:09:29AM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> Here's a thought: the system should actually *pre*-depend on packages
> that are required by the packaging system itself. But essential
> packages are treated (at least by dpkg) as universal dependencies, not
> universal pre-dependenc
I am not sure that potato got pushed back due to trying to do too much -- I
think it got pushed back because the boot floppies aren't ready. From slink
to potato involves moving to kernel 2.2 (2.4 will be out soon, and potato
will look antiquated once again..) and incremental upgrades to the little
On Wed, Dec 01, 1999 at 04:30:19PM -0800, Chris Waters wrote:
> A Weak-Suggests could be every bit as invisible as my current solution
> -- maybe even more so -- for those who don't want non-main software,
> but would have big advantages for those who *do* use non-main
> software.
>
> Enhances is
perhaps it would be a nice extension to list all the config files owned by
that package...
On Tue, Nov 23, 1999 at 07:31:01PM +0100, Goswin Brederlow wrote:
> Package: debian-policy
> Version: 3.1.1.0
> Severity: wishlist
>
> Policy says that any binary must come with a manpage. I would like t
On Thu, Nov 04, 1999 at 11:14:35AM +0100, Massimo Dal Zotto wrote:
> I would personally like that also the copyright files would be compressed.
> I don't think that the compression changes the copyright itself or the
> licencing policy of the package, or the ability of the user to read this
> infor
On Tue, Nov 02, 1999 at 02:19:26AM +0100, Laurent Martelli wrote:
> > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Joey> Policy says that "small" files should be compressed, but does
> Joey> not define small. The default blocksize seems like a good
> Joey> definition. What is the
(Sorry, bad manners to followup own email, but more came to me..)
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:50:06AM -0700, Seth R Arnold wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:41:00AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
> [...]
> > I've eliminated the tetex-bin dependency, BTW. bzip2 hadn't oc
On Wed, Oct 27, 1999 at 03:41:00AM -0700, Joel Klecker wrote:
[...]
> I've eliminated the tetex-bin dependency, BTW. bzip2 hadn't occurred
> to me as a dependency, but I guess it is. What else? patch? We need
> to discuss what's build-essential anyway. Here's a start:
>
> libc-dev
> gcc
> g++
>
On Thu, Oct 14, 1999 at 12:56:48AM +0200, Tomasz Wêgrzanowski wrote:
> > Really, you are not supposed to call 'halt' or 'reboot' directly -
> > that's just a BSD heritage that people can't seem to get rid of.
> > But if you insist on it, halt or reboot don't need to be setuid root,
> > since they c
On Tue, Sep 28, 1999 at 11:13:53AM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> Ok, let's bring this back to implementation. How would you propose we handle
> this? Currently daemons install, set themselves up, and begin running.
>
> a) we can prompt.
> b) we leave everything off and let the admin turn i
On Sat, Sep 25, 1999 at 01:02:44AM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> The Doctor What wrote:
> > Why shouldn't *all* daemon packages ask these questions, and whether to even
> > run *upon install*?
>
> Because we need to decrease the number of questions asked at install time,
> not increase it.
How about
On Thu, Sep 23, 1999 at 11:28:45AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Andreas Voegele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Firstly, none of the existing applications that go to /opt use these
> > directories. For example, the version of Applixware that SuSE ships
> > goes to /opt/applix and is started with /
On Wed, Sep 22, 1999 at 02:25:55AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 1999 at 05:14:28PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> > > This draft includes the recently discussed additions to /opt.
> >
> > Debian does not use /opt; we reserve it for third parties and end
> > users.
[...]
> If I am n
On Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:18:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> Le Sat, Sep 18, 1999 at 04:10:42AM -0300, Nicolás Lichtmaier écrivait:
> > Package: debian-policy
> > Severity: wishlist
> > Version: 3.0.1.1
> >
> > Most configuration files have manpages, but not all. It would be useful
> > if e
On Sun, Sep 12, 1999 at 06:03:30PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
>
> Of course they like it... They can advertise "Debian 2.1" and even if
> there's a new point release available they can continue selling old
> versions until they run out. And when people order it, they'll get the
> new version or
On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 02:51:21PM -0400, Zephaniah E. Hull wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 1999 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > On Aug 27, Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >So perhaps we should mandate that all mail programs should be capable
> > >of using Maildir format, which
38 matches
Mail list logo
