[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 31.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 29360: point 1) is an issue for the release notes; I can't retroactively
> patch an old prerm;
You could, but it would be fairly ugly, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
Startegy: pre-depend on a package that does the
Previously Brian White wrote:
> You know, I don't see this as "grave". It means that a user can
> effectively "export to the world" any file readable by www-data. In
> general, this means only things that can be read by public. So,
> the user can't intentionally export anything that he/she could
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 31548 libpam0g
Bug#31548: collision of libpwdb.so and pppd
Bug reassigned from package `libpam0g' to `libpam0g'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs database)
> Previously Brian White wrote:
> > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> > (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
You know, I don't see this as "grave". It means that a user can
effecti
>> "MD" == Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
MD> I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put
MD> in potato will work with 2.0.X kernels. I don't have one to test
MD> with---my only non-production system can't do 2.0.X because of
MD> driver issues.
It does for
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 12:47:33PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
Unknown command or malformed arguments to command.
> reassign 31548 libpam0g
Bug#31548: collision of libpwdb.so and pppd
Bug reassigned from package `libpwdb0g-dev' to `libpam0g'.
> thanks
S
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reassign 31548 libpwdb0g-dev
Bug#31548: collision of libpwdb.so and pppd
Bug reassigned from package `libpam0g' to `libpwdb0g-dev'.
> thanks
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Ian Jackson
(administrator, Debian bugs d
Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > sysutils 29392 oldversion procinfo in sysutils is broken [76]
> > (Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> Is there a reason not to put the new version in?
I need someone to confirm for me that the new sysutils that I put in
potato w
On Sun, Jan 31, 1999 at 10:54:20AM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:
> > > xbase 30852 X packages do not upgrade automatically due to
> > > name change. [41] (Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
> > > xdm 29360 xdm: Stopped X without warning/asking [77]
> > > (Branden Ro
All right, here's the revised list (removing anything that someone confirmed
as almost done.)
Quoting Michael Stone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> > (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>
> There's a suggested fix in the bug
Here we go again :)
Previously Brian White wrote:
> apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
We should just force SymLinksIfOwnerMatch for /home to solve this.
> autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (
> I strongly disagree on this point: Bugs must _not_ be documented; they
> must be _fixed_! (We are Debian, not Microsoft ;).
of course... but some bugs must be fixed before others (i'm assuming we
don't have 6000 people on this list, or it wouldn't be half so quiet :)) and
the ones that i think ar
On Sat, Jan 30, 1999 at 09:47:09PM -0500, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > Should we start going through the lintian bugs, and start harassing (err,
> > sending patches to) the maintainers of some of the packages with easily
> > fixed lintian bugs?
> ooc, what's lintian? sorry... i'm new.
$ dpkg -s lin
Michael Stone wrote:
> > chameleon 32522 chameleon in slink depends on too-new libs [0]
> > ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sean E. Perry))
>
> Looks like it just needs a recompile against the right libs; or does it not
> work against the older glib?
The (former) maintainer just did a new upload t
Well, let's see what's holding up slink. :)
> apache32204 user directories allow symlinks to other files [0]
> (Johnie Ingram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
There's a suggested fix in the bug report. Is it problematic?
> autoconf 32391 Autoconf patches for slink [0] (Ben Pfaff <[
On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Jonathan P Tomer wrote:
> > What sort of things do we want to start aiming for? Certainly we want to
> > keep killing release-critical bugs, but do we also want to try minimising
> > normal/wishlist bugs in, say, base or important packages?
> i think that's probably one of t
> Since no one else seems to be in the mood to say anything either...
>
> What sort of things do we want to start aiming for? Certainly we want to
> keep killing release-critical bugs, but do we also want to try minimising
> normal/wishlist bugs in, say, base or important packages?
i think that's
17 matches
Mail list logo
