Re: debian-devel-digest Digest V101 #50
>------------------------------
>Content-Type: text/plain
>debian-devel-digest Digest Volume 101 : Issue 50
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-digest-request@lists.debian.org
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@debian.org.
>Today's Topics:
> Re: apache2: clearing the air [pleas [ Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net> ]
> Re: 'testing' packages under 'stable [ Nick Phillips <nwp@lemon-computing. ]
> Re: woody is getting worse... [ Nick Phillips <nwp@lemon-computing. ]
> Re: Bug#116001: ITP: libpcsc-perl -- [ Ludovic Rousseau <rousseau@debian.o ]
> Early draft of release notes [ Rob Bradford <rob@debianplanet.org> ]
> Re: Early draft of release notes [ Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> ]
> Re: Early draft of release notes [ Rob Bradford <rob@debianplanet.org> ]
> Re: Early draft of release notes [ Andreas Rottmann <a.rottmann@gmx.at ]
> Re: Early draft of release notes [ Rob Bradford <rob@debianplanet.org> ]
> Processed: your mail [ owner@bugs.debian.org (Debian Bug T ]
> Boost [ "David A. Greene" <greened@eecs.umi ]
> Bug#116029: Acknowledgement (Subject [ Tamas SZERB <toma@rulez.org> ]
> Re: 'testing' packages under 'stable [ "Greg Wiley" <greg@orthogony.com> ]
> Re: File corruption [ Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au ]
> Re: /dev/urandom and /dev/random [ Ethan Benson <erbenson@alaska.net> ]
> Re: gs 6.5 preview packages [ Peter S Galbraith <p.galbraith@glob ]
> Re: woody is getting worse... [ Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org. ]
> X in Woody: you gotta be fscking kid [ Dimitri Maziuk <dmaziuk@yola.bmrb.w ]
> Re: X in Woody: you gotta be fscking [ Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com> ]
> Re: woody is getting worse... [ Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org. ]
> Is anyone interested in adopting ssh [ Matt Zimmerman <mdz@debian.org> ]
>------------------------------
>Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 05:27:50 +1000
>From: Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net>
>To: Tomas Pospisek <tpo2@spin.ch>
>Cc: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: apache2: clearing the air [please read]
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011018052750.A9836@kabuki.sfarc.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 08:55:32PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Joey Hess wrote:
>> > No, if it can't be automated, it can't be automated, and admins will
>> > have to do it by hand. The fact remains that a *lot* of admins are
>> > eventually going to want to upgrade to apache2, and the upgrade path
>> > should be as painless as possible.
>> >
>> > If it already requires manual config file conversion, then stacking
>> > vhosting changes and default web document root changes on top of that is
>> > beginning to ask a heck of a lot from the admin. If we make it too hard
>> > we will just get a lot of admins swearing, compiling the new version of
>> > apache from sources, and losing faith in debian.
>>
>> What you describe exactly happened here:
>>
>> after the x-th upgrade that broke my running apache config and a lot of
>> swearing (mind you again, our setup here is very simple and differs only
>> minimally from the default) I first thought about moving on to compiling
>> apache from source - apache-toolbox would've helped - but I didn't have
>> the time so I just stopped upgrading apache unless I was *forced* to do
>> it. I don't know about others.
>>
>> (Which is not to say that I didn't appreciate netgod's effort, he just
>> couldn't keep up.)
>>
>> > And I'm concerned that the focus of these apache2 packages that
>> > have been produced is not such upgrades, and that the people who have
>> > worked on them have seemed to entirely disregrade that problem in the
>> > mail at the head of this thread.
>>
>> Your concern may be valid - you have to check with them.
>As I have repeated quite a few times, it wasn't my main concern. I can't
>speak for Thom. My ideal path would be apache->apache and new apache2
>install, side-by-side, a2 on a different port->customise your
>config->apache2. Consider that upstream is still alpha (maybe beta if
>they can all agree for the first time since about April), so you're not
>too likely to be migrating production yet.
>--
>Daniel Stone <daniel@sfarc.net>
><aiel> Ep - irix 4.X is like sco on a drug cocktail (tm) xL
>------------------------------
>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:08:19 +0100
>From: Nick Phillips <nwp@lemon-computing.com>
>To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: 'testing' packages under 'stable'
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011017200819.B16102@lemon-computing.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 05:10:29PM +0100, Richard Kettlewell wrote:
>> > Surely there must be some way that we can improve this situation -
>> > obviously some packages will require major upgrades (like, it really
>> > won't work without perl 5.6, or the latest libc or whatever), but I
>> > reckon a whole load would work just fine if they'd been built on a
>> > stable system - as shown by the number of private repositories of
>> > new-packages-built-for-potato that exist.
>>
>> It might be sufficient to specifically document the procedure for
>> building a package from testing under stable, given that it often is
>> no more difficult than unpack, build, binary.
>Unfortunately lots of people will stop at the DH_COMPAT=3... then there's
>new perl policy which means that it's not (quite) trivial to build new
>perl libs under stable, if my experience this afternoon is anything to go by.
>> The downside of doing this is the user who does it has to be more much
>> careful about securing their system, given that AFAIK security.d.o
>> only carries updates for stable. i.e. the same piece of documentation
>> should mention precisely such caveats as this one.
>Yup.
>Cheers,
>Nick
>--
>Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
>Truth will out this morning. (Which may really mess things up.)
>------------------------------
>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 20:03:00 +0100
>From: Nick Phillips <nwp@lemon-computing.com>
>To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: woody is getting worse...
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011017200300.A16102@lemon-computing.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 11:22:43AM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote:
>> But in this case, the bug was caught in unstable, not in testing. Two weeks
>Caught, like a bar of wet soap ;)
>--
>Nick Phillips -- nwp@lemon-computing.com
>You will experience a strong urge to do good; but it will pass.
>------------------------------
>Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 21:40:09 +0200
>From: Ludovic Rousseau <rousseau@debian.org>
>To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: Bug#116001: ITP: libpcsc-perl -- Perl interface to the PCSC smart card library
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20011017214008.A2485@ornithorynque.maison.bogus>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Le Wednesday 17 October 2001 à 20:45:50, Wouter Verhelst a écrit:
>> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Ludovic Rousseau wrote:
>>
>> > Package: wnpp
>> > Version: N/A; reported 2001-10-17
>> > Severity: wishlist
>> >
>> > Package name : libp
*** Your message did not reach its recipient ***
It was caught by the mailing system as spam.
If this message is not spam and you feel that
this message was caught in error, please email
a note to spam_filter@netfx-2000.net.
If this message is spam, knock it off!
This server is in California where it is illegal
to spam! We do not accept spam here!
We will go after all spammers to the maximum
extent of the law!
Reply to: