On Sat, Feb 13, 1999 at 12:50:10PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> That's cool. The license the DFSG, we can pinch the kernel and package it up
> :-) Then port/rebuild all the tools, packaging BSD-specific ones where
> needed.
>
> I installed FreeBSD 2.2.5 here. My main comments were:
> * The setup
On Sat, Jul 04, 1998 at 11:47:55PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> I am packaging up Communicator/Navigator 4.05(full debs) for debian. Because
> of the way I provide /usr/X11R6/bin/netscape, I have to conflict
> netscape{3,4}.
>
> During an irc session, someone said that fortify wouldn't install with
On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 03:52:58PM -0600, Anthony Fok wrote:
> However, I would like to amend the above. (BTW, is it a Policy? I
> couldn't find the word "frozen" in the Policy Manual. ;-) IMHO, the above
> rule should not be applied to pure documentation packages, including (but
> not limited
On Thu, Feb 12, 1998 at 05:17:07PM +0100, Christian Schwarz wrote:
> I think it would be better to discuss the new standard first. Note, that
> the current policy only mentions that packages requiring an MTA have to
> depend on the VP mail-transport-agent.
>
> So we need to define in the policy m
On Wed, Feb 11, 1998 at 09:42:06AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Tommi> BTW, I hope lintian will check that all the suid files are
> Tommi> registered with suidmanager..
> Say what? When did this become policy?
Uh-oh.. it isn't. It's a personal preference.
Not necessaril
On Tue, Feb 10, 1998 at 12:51:09PM -0800, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > BTW, I hope lintian will check that all the suid files are
> > registered with suidmanager..
> An issue then being that `suidmanager' must be one of the first
> things to get installed. Should it then be part of the ba
On Tue, Feb 10, 1998 at 12:40:17AM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> > Of course, a better solution would be something akin to
> > suidmanager -- those packages that need it would use it,
> > less important, non-critical, wouldn't.
> Actually, thinking about it, since we have strict rules ab
On Mon, Feb 09, 1998 at 04:10:29PM -0600, Rob Browning wrote:
> > Note, that md5sums was only introduced by deb-make some time ago and never
> > has been widely discussed. AFAIR, a better solution than md5sums files
> > would be to store more information about the unpacked files, as setuid
> > bits
On Wed, Jan 28, 1998 at 05:44:37PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> The reason behind requiring a single email of the form
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was multifold; one was the database; but the
> other, and in my opinion, more important reason was so thet there is
> an easy address format for
9 matches
Mail list logo
