niXforums Forum Index
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
·  nixdoc.net ·  man pages ·  Linux HOWTOs ·  FreeBSD Tips ·  Forums
navigation Forum index » *nix » Linux » Distributions » Debian » devel
"The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 460 [6888 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 458, 459, 460 Next
Author Message
server
*nix forums addict


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org Reply with quote

message unavailable
Back to top
Ola Lundqvist
*nix forums beginner


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 24

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: "The Debian exim 4 packages suck badly" on exim-users@exim.org Reply with quote

Hello

On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:42:56PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
Quote:
On Fri, 2005-02-18 at 21:37 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 02:15:16PM -0600, Steve Greenland <steveg@moregruel.net> wrote:
(...)
And yes, it does belong there. It could easily add the something like:

The single monolithic file is the normal upstream configuration,
while the other choice is a Debian innovation that works better with
large installations or ISPs needing to support many virtual domains.

For newbies, this is the first MTA installation they will have ever
seen. Help 'em out, for Pete's sake.

Do newbies understand the concept of "upstream" ?

Yes. Or vaguely.

No they don't. Even some experienced unix persons don't do that. It is
a word related much to debian.

With experience from a couple of hundred bug submitters I can tell that
many do not know what upstream is. They may vaguely understand it but
I have explained it many times. So I actually think the current wording
is a lot better. And it IS THE DEFAULT!

Regards,

// Ola

Quote:
Depends on the level of newbieness.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson, LA USA
PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail.

"Don't tell me peace has broken out."
Bertolt Brecht


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org



--
--------------------- Ola Lundqvist ---------------------------
/ opal@debian.org Annebergsslingan 37 \
| opal@lysator.liu.se 654 65 KARLSTAD |
| +46 (0)54-10 14 30 +46 (0)70-332 1551 |
| http://www.opal.dhs.org UIN/icq: 4912500 |
\ gpg/f.p.: 7090 A92B 18FE 7994 0C36 4FE4 18A1 B1CF 0FE5 3DD9 /
---------------------------------------------------------------


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Adrian von Bidder
*nix forums Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 206

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config) Reply with quote

On Tuesday 01 February 2005 21.49, Raphael Bossek wrote:
Quote:
Message was signed by bossekr@debian.org (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF).
Warning: The signature is bad.

Something's broken somewhere...

Can anybody confirm so I can stop worrying about my set up?

thanks
-- vbi

--
Press CTRL-ALT-DEL to continue....
Back to top
David Schmitt
*nix forums addict


Joined: 25 Feb 2005
Posts: 96

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Bad Sig (was: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config)) Reply with quote

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 10:21, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Quote:
On Tuesday 01 February 2005 21.49, Raphael Bossek wrote:
Message was signed by bossekr@debian.org (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF).
Warning: The signature is bad.

Something's broken somewhere...

Can anybody confirm so I can stop worrying about my set up?

Me too, but I noticed an escaped >From in the message and didn't investigate
further.

Regards, David
#


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Mark Brown
*nix forums addict


Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 61

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Who could be able to help SW vendors to support Debian? Reply with quote

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:46:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

Quote:
With the proviso that static linking against libc6 is more likely to
introduce ABI problems via nss than just dynamically linking against an old
libc6 ABI (i.e., GLIBC_2.0 or GLIBC_2.1).

Not to mention the LGPL too. Static linking against glibc is strongly
disrecommended by upstream.

For user space apps the dynamic interface to glibc is probably a better
target to aim for than the kernel - it's offering pretty much the same
level of ABI stability and is much less hassle.

--
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Andrew Stribblehill
*nix forums beginner


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bug#293167: ITP: request-tracker3.4 -- Extensible trouble-ticket tracking system Reply with quote

[Please Cc me on replies to this thread]

mpalmer wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
Request Tracker is a development framework for trouble ticket systems.
Users are encouraged to add new code to its (Perl) packages, and
there's an overlay mechanism to support this.

Unfortunately, this makes updates non-trivial, at least sometimes.

So you do a bit of testing before madly apt-get dist-upgrading your
production servers. What a concept.

Think of RT as being like a library bundled with its -dev package.

You don't go replacing libraries with versions of a higher soname
when you know most of your users have linked specifically to the
version you distributed.

Likewise, we're not about to junk RT 3.0 till 3.4 has proved stable
for long enough that most of our users have ported all their scripts
to the new RT 3.4 APIs.

"Our priorities are our users ..." right?

That said, we'll scrap the 3.2 packages when 3.4 get into sid;
they've never been in a stable distribution and they haven't been in
sid for that long.

--
Andrew Stribblehill <ads@debian.org>
Systems programmer, IT Service, University of Durham, England


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Henrique de Moraes Holsch
*nix forums Guru


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 541

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Would you consider co-maintainers for GnuPG? Reply with quote

James,

Would you consider the possibility of accepting co-maintainers for gnupg,
pehaps through an Alioth project?

What would be your conditions on co-maintainer behaviour for this? (e.g.
"never upload to Debian sid without my explicit approval, but Debian
experimental is ok")

--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Back to top
Tollef Fog Heen
*nix forums Guru Wannabe


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 169

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: non-ftp way to upload packages Reply with quote

* Bartosz Fenski aka fEnIo

| On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 01:12:45PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > | > ,>scp to a Debian host (like gluck or merkel) and ftp from there. Or
| > | > >just scp it to the DELAYED queue on gluck (1day) and let it ftp it for
| > | > >you Wink
| > |
| > | > Does it ftp in time for the daily dinstall?
| > |
| > | The 0-day queue is ftp-ed about 1 hours before dinstall, IIRC.
| >
| > No, it runs every 15 minutes.
| >
| > Somebody could probably document all this somewhere else than in my
| > ~/bin and my crontab. Razz
|
| Developers' reference and your mail about this queue says that it's run
| 1 hour before dinstall ;)

My crontab trumps the developer's reference (in this case, at least
Smile. It was changed due to some people using it for large packages,
which caused time skew when there was more on in the 0-day dir than
what would be transferred in 1 hour. (Causing DELAYED/3-days to be
effectively treated as DELAYED/4-days)

| Anyway, your mail also says that if someone send you config for dupload
| then you are going to include it in some README.
| Is this README available somewhere?

In the DELAYED dir, yes.

| Also I saw dput's config and it seems to be somehow universal, I mean it
| doesn't include anything about [0123456789] queues... is it mean I have to
| use some additional options in command line or maybe I should customize
| this example config?

from man dput(1):

-e, --delayed - Upload to a DELAYED queue, rather than the
usual Incoming. This takes an argument from 1 to 9.

--
Tollef Fog Heen ,''`.
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' :
`. `'
`-


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Bas Zoetekouw
*nix forums beginner


Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bad Sig (was: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config)) Reply with quote

Hi David!

You wrote:

Quote:
Message was signed by bossekr@debian.org (Key ID: 0x376941AB835EB2FF).
Warning: The signature is bad.

Something's broken somewhere...

Can anybody confirm so I can stop worrying about my set up?

Me too, but I noticed an escaped >From in the message and didn't investigate
further.

AFAIK, gpg signs the body only.
Anyway, sig is bad here, too.

--
Kind regards,
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | GPG key: 0644fab7 |
|----------------------------| Fingerprint: c1f5 f24c d514 3fec 8bf6 |
| bas@o2w.nl, bas@debian.org | a2b1 2bae e41f 0644 fab7 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Wouter Verhelst
*nix forums Guru


Joined: 04 Apr 2005
Posts: 558

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bad Sig (was: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config)) Reply with quote

Op wo, 02-02-2005 te 13:53 +0100, schreef Bas Zoetekouw:
Quote:
Hi David!
Me too, but I noticed an escaped >From in the message and didn't investigate
further.

AFAIK, gpg signs the body only.

Yes, but a leading 'From' on a line will be escaped to '>From' in
transit. This is because some software will otherwise interpret the
leading from to be the start of a new message (it's a bit too close to
the mbox format start)

--
Wouter Verhelst
NixSys BVBA
Louizastraat 14, 2800 Mechelen
T:+32 15 27 69 50 / F:+32 15 27 60 51 / M:+32 486 836 198


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Wim De Smet
*nix forums addict


Joined: 07 Mar 2005
Posts: 57

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Who could be able to help SW vendors to support Debian? Reply with quote

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 09:55:51PM +0000, Tim Cutts wrote:
Quote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 07:37:27PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
Would any people around have pointers which could be given to such
people?? Do we already have an entry point for such technical issues
as proprietary SW vendors needing technical information about the way
to support Debian??

The first thing I would do is to try to convince the vendor not to get
so hung up on supporting different distributions. If their product
depends tightly on kernel stuff, then they should base their support
matrix on kernel version, not on distribution.

Point them at Platform Computing as an example of how to do it with LSF.
They support Linux, and they don't give a stuff what distribution you're
running. They support certain kernels, and certain C libraries, and
other than that they don't care. And they're not too precise about
kernel version - on X86 you can run any 2.4 or 2.6 kernel, and any 2.1,
2.2 or 2.3 glibc. They're a little pickier on other architectures (they
don't support 2.6 on either Alpha or Itanium yet).


I would agree and add that soname incompatibilities are probably not an
issue. Considering that this is probably a propietary program they're
writing anyway I cannot imagine them linking in many libraries currently
in main...

greets,
Wim


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Florian Weimer
*nix forums Guru


Joined: 19 Feb 2005
Posts: 418

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bug#293167: ITP: request-tracker3.4 -- Extensible trouble-ticket tracking system Reply with quote

* Matthew Palmer:

Quote:
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 06:27:30PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Lars Wirzenius:

ti, 2005-02-01 kello 15:25 +0000, Stephen Quinney kirjoitti:
This is the 3.4 series of RT, it can be installed alongside the 3.0
and 3.2 series without any problems. This release is a big
improvement over previous versions and features many new features,
substantial performance improvements and a significant cleanup and
restructuring of the codebase.

What is the a reason every version series of Request Tracker needs to be
packaged, instead of having a single request-tracker package that gets
updated with newer versions?

Request Tracker is a development framework for trouble ticket systems.
Users are encouraged to add new code to its (Perl) packages, and
there's an overlay mechanism to support this.

Unfortunately, this makes updates non-trivial, at least sometimes.

So you do a bit of testing before madly apt-get dist-upgrading your
production servers. What a concept.

As Andrew noted, we already do similar things for library packages.
There's a growing trend to provide different version which can be
installed in parallel for other infrastructure packages, too (IIRC,
PostgreSQL is heading in this direction, too).

As a user, I think this is very convenient. The ability to switch
back to a known-to-work version by tweaking a few configuration files
is reassuring, even if you've tested the new software version on an
indepedent machine.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Pierre Habouzit
*nix forums addict


Joined: 21 Feb 2005
Posts: 98

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bug#293167: ITP: request-tracker3.4 -- Extensible trouble-ticket tracking system Reply with quote

Le Mer 2 Février 2005 14:38, Florian Weimer a écrit :
Quote:
As Andrew noted, we already do similar things for library packages.
There's a growing trend to provide different version which can be
installed in parallel for other infrastructure packages, too (IIRC,
PostgreSQL is heading in this direction, too).

As a user, I think this is very convenient.  The ability to switch
back to a known-to-work version by tweaking a few configuration files
is reassuring, even if you've tested the new software version on an
indepedent machine.

sure, having two different versions can be great.

though, I expect most of RT users to want having smooth upgrades from
any stabke version of RT to the new one. and that's true for pgsql,
mysql, or any app that live in debian.

The two point of view have advantages. but there is a problem in having
a lot of different versions : you have to maintain each of them, even
wrt security and stuff like that.

and expect most of the users to be confused by all thoses packages that
look like beeing the same, but are not
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O
OOO http://www.madism.org
Back to top
Holger Levsen
*nix forums beginner


Joined: 05 Mar 2005
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: good signature... Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config) Reply with quote

Hi,

On Wednesday 02 February 2005 10:21, Adrian von Bidder wrote:
Quote:
Warning: The signature is bad.

Something's broken somewhere...

Can anybody confirm so I can stop worrying about my set up?

I cannot confirm this, the signature is valid here. I have no valid trust path
to the key, but that's another issue...


regards,
Holger
Back to top
Adeodato Simó
*nix forums Guru Wannabe


Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 107

PostPosted: Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Bad Sig (was: Re: Diversion of APT tools by dpkg-cross (apt-get,apt-cache,apt-config)) Reply with quote

* Wouter Verhelst [Wed, 02 Feb 2005 14:15:35 +0100]:
Quote:
Op wo, 02-02-2005 te 13:53 +0100, schreef Bas Zoetekouw:
Hi David!
Me too, but I noticed an escaped >From in the message and didn't investigate
further.

AFAIK, gpg signs the body only.

Yes, but a leading 'From' on a line will be escaped to '>From' in
transit. This is because some software will otherwise interpret the
leading from to be the start of a new message (it's a bit too close to
the mbox format start)

/me hugs mutt's $encode_from.

--
Adeodato Simó
EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621

As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty,
and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I became a
scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls.
-- Matt Cartmill


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 460 [6888 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3, ..., 458, 459, 460 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2008 12:31 pm | All times are GMT
navigation Forum index » *nix » Linux » Distributions » Debian » devel
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts ftp.debian.org & amd64 packages tanelko Debian 1 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:10 pm
No new posts vsftpd chroot for users xi@videotron.ca Setup 1 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:09 pm
No new posts Rejecting non-existant users Matthias Exim 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:00 pm
No new posts mlock(2) for ordinary users Peter Jeremy Architecture 4 Fri Jul 21, 2006 10:40 am
No new posts help setting up exim -- mail not sent to domain ithou.org Albert Wong Exim 0 Fri Jul 21, 2006 7:00 am

Personal Loans | Free Ringtones | Internet Advertising | Bad Credit Loan | Hackers
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
 
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Unix/Linux blog |  electronics forum |  medicine forum |  science forum | 
Privacy Policy


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 4.4816s ][ Queries: 16 (4.1860s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]