On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2006-11-27 13:02:18, schrieb Michael Stone:
> > On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > >And HOW can I get UID's >=65536 to work?
> > >
> > >I have already tried it in my /etc/passwd and
> > >/etc/group but it gives to
Am 2006-11-27 13:02:18, schrieb Michael Stone:
> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> >And HOW can I get UID's >=65536 to work?
> >
> >I have already tried it in my /etc/passwd and
> >/etc/group but it gives tonns of errors.
> >
> >Any hints?
>
> Hint: you need to b
On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 05:33:25PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
And HOW can I get UID's >=65536 to work?
I have already tried it in my /etc/passwd and
/etc/group but it gives tonns of errors.
Any hints?
Hint: you need to be more specific about the problems you're having.
Mike Stone
--
T
Hello Steve,
Am 2006-11-24 19:15:41, schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>
> > > Every time the discussion has come up so far, there's been an absence of
> > > consensus about whether it was correct to attempt to reclaim user ids on
> > > pu
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 06:16:28PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Every time the discussion has come up so far, there's been an absence of
> > consensus about whether it was correct to attempt to reclaim user ids on
> > purge.
> When does GNU/Linux distributions support 32 Bit UID/GID's?
Deb
Sorry for the late answer but I have found this message in the SPAM folder
Am 2006-11-14 19:57:52, schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Every time the discussion has come up so far, there's been an absence of
> consensus about whether it was correct to attempt to reclaim user ids on
> purge.
When does GNU/
Hello Lucas,
Thank you for your work.
On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 18:44 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
> ones, apt and debfoster were removed, but didn't fail when debconf and
> ucf were kept. This indicates a missing dependency on
* Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061115 03:12]:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>
> >> Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
> >> its dependencies being present during purge, the
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy, since
> > I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with regard to
> > system users and package purging to our users. Right now, every
> > maintainer is making their
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:01:16PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy,
> > since I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with
> > regard to system users and package purging
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In the case of adduser, there is a strong case for not doing deluser at
> > *all* on purge, because it's impossible to ensure that there are no
> > off-line or remote resources referencing
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I ran some piuparts tests over etch on i386. I filed quite a lot of
> bugs, but there are some logs that still need reviewing. I WON'T REVIEW
> THEM MYSELF.
> Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This is something that I'd really like to see us sort out in policy,
> since I think we should be able to describe consistent behavior with
> regard to system users and package purging to our users.
What makes the most sense to me is to not delete the use
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:12:24PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
> >> its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone
> >> should not be a valid reason to fail. If this on the other hand is a
> >> valid e
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
>> Hmm, I would read policy in a way that since a package can not rely on
>> its dependencies being present during purge, their pure absence alone
>> should not be a valid reason to fail
Justin Pryzby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This is at least true for the "debconf" errors; since "debconf is a
> cache", it isn't useful to fail when the cache has already been removed.
> I guess this is why some packages use:
>. /usr/share/debconf/confmodule || true
> They should really us
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 09:35:12PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a
> > mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed".
> > Sa
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 03:13:42PM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> For the "adduser" errors, it might be reasonable to intentionally fail, as a
> mechanism to alert the admin that "the user hasn't and can't be removed".
> Same
> for update-inetd. Is that the intent?
Hmm, I would read policy in a
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 08:07:27PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
> > ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed, but didn't fail when all
> > important&require
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 06:44:38PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
> ones, apt and debfoster wxhere removed, but didn't fail when all
> important&required packages were kept. This indicates a missing
> dependency on an important
Hi,
I ran some piuparts tests over etch on i386. I filed quite a lot of
bugs, but there are some logs that still need reviewing. I WON'T REVIEW
THEM MYSELF.
Here is a list of packages that fail when all packages except essential
ones, apt and debfoster were removed, but didn't fail when debconf a
21 matches
Mail list logo
