Re: debian-devel-digest Digest V102 #114
>debian-devel-digest Digest Volume 102 : Issue 114
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
>with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
> Re: State of xfstt [ email@example.com ]
> Re: WTF is with dhcp? [ "Eloy A. Paris" <firstname.lastname@example.org ]
> Re: fun with libgal [ Jules Bean <email@example.com> ]
> Re: State of xfstt [ Colin Watson <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
> erroneous SM_UNMON request [ "Thomas E. Vaughan" <tevaugha@tevau ]
> Re: WTF is with dhcp? [ Jerome Petazzoni <email@example.com> ]
> Re: fun with libgal [ Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo <jsogo@debi ]
> Re: fun with libgal [ Junichi Uekawa <firstname.lastname@example.org ]
> Re: balsa build help [ Andreas Rottmann <email@example.com ]
> Re: Potato to Woody dist-upgrade pro [ Theodore Tso <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
> Re: fun with libgal [ Ryan Murray <email@example.com> ]
> Re: Vanishing /usr/doc symlink [ Santiago Vila <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
> Help! Can't build a kernel that moun [ Adam C Powell IV <email@example.com> ]
> Re: non-ASCII characters in /etc/loc [ Glenn Maynard <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
> Re: WTF is with dhcp? [ "Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists" <t ]
> Re: WTF is with dhcp? [ Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com ]
> Re: Potato to Woody dist-upgrade pro [ "Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists" <t ]
> Re: Help! Can't build a kernel that [ Scott Dier <firstname.lastname@example.org> ]
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:36:49 -0800
>To: "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA@rki.de>
>Cc: Debian Development liste <email@example.com>
>Subject: Re: State of xfstt
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20020124083649.A16454@buici.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>While I haven't verified it, I read that there is no need for xfstt
>since the functionality has been added to XFree86.
>On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 04:32:20PM +0100, Tille, Andreas wrote:
>> while browsing through the list of RC-bugs I stumbled over xfstt.
>> It has a real lot of bugs most of them very old.
>> While the one RC bug (#107193) seems to be easy to fix because
>> it is just a FHS packaging issue I wonder what to do with #82992.
>> It is quite old and could really be a problem. Unfortunately
>> I'm really no a font expert and so it does not seem very reasonable
>> to fix just #107193 in NMU.
>> Moreover someone should test, whether the important bugs listed
>> for this package are somewhat related to #82992.
>> Kind regards
>> RC-Bug of the week: 118793
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com
>Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:11:02 -0500
>From: "Eloy A. Paris" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: WTF is with dhcp?
>Message-ID: <[🔎] 20020124171101.GA17949@antenas.dyndns.org>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>On Jan. 22, 2001 Sam Johnston <email@example.com> wrote:
>> - an important bug that makes the package virtually unusable for
>> many (related to the run_dhcp setting which should probably move to
>> /etc/defaults/dhcp) which is around 1.3 years old and counting (w/
>> - 4 normal bugs > 3 years old
>> - 7 normal bugs > 2 years old
>> - 6 normal bugs > 1 years old
>> - 11 recent normal bugs
>> Presumably many of these bugs are dupes. Does anyone know why such an
>> important package is in such a bad state? Are there many others like
>OK, I claim full responsibility for the state in which the ISC DHCP
>The main reason the packages are in such a poor state is that I
>personally lost interest in the ISC DHCP 2.x series a long time ago;
>I have been running the 3.x series since the very early stages of its
>development. Since then (December 27, 1999 according to my changelog) I
>have been running the experimental packages I have been putting together
>after each beta release of the 3.x series. The second (less important)
>reason is that I have been busy lately with work and other things
>I also added debconf support to the experimental packages so specifying
>the interfaces dhrelay and dhcpd should listen to was easy. Several
>bugs in the BTS are related to this and since I had them fixed in the
>experimental packages I lost interest in fixing the 2.x packages in
>unstable (and testing.)
>Now, I would have liked to upload my experimental packages for the 3.x
>series a long time ago (October 5, 2001 that was when DHCP ISC 3.0 was
>released.) The problem is that the boot floppies are using the DHCP
>client from the 2.x series. The client in the 3.x series is too big
>to be handled now by the boot floppies so when I mentioned that I was
>ready to upload to unstable my 3.x packages I was told to wait: if the
>3.x packages had moved from unstable to testing and then to frozen that
>would have meant problems for the boot-floppies team.
>With this quick introduction is that I want to present my plan for fixing
>the current problems with the DHCP packages:
>I realize the DHCP 2.x packages in testing are important and I have
>decided to fix the problems now. I want to focus on fixing the current
>problems with the 2.x DHCP packages. Once the most important bugs are
>taken care of I will upload the 3.x packages to unstable, and file a
>RC bug against them so they can't move into testing. The reason is the
>requirement of the boot floppies to use the 2.x DHCP client.
>The most important bugs in the DHCP 2.x packages seem to be:
>- An infamous run_dhcp variable that lives in the /etc/init.d/dhcp init
>script. This variable must be set to 1 so dhcpd runs. Most people have
>complained that they have to repeat the process every time they upgrade,
>and have filed important bugs because of this.
>- Inability to specify what interfaces the dhcpd daemon should listen to.
>To solve these two I want to get rid of the run_dhcp variable altogether,
>and use /etc/default/dhcp to declare the interfaces dhcpd should
>I'll need testers for the new v2 packages so I'll announce here when I
>I also want to get feedback on the following: the current DHCP 2.x
>packages support bith 2.0.x and 2.2.x kernels. It is done via a wrapper
>that runs different binaries (dhcpd-2.2.x or dhcpd-2.0.x) based on the
>running kernel. I think this is an ugly klutch and I would like to get
>rid of it. How many of you are still running 2.0.x kernels, or how many
>of you think I should cut this historical baggage?
>Finally, I wanted to ask if there's any interest in keeping the ISC
>DHCP v2 packages in the distribution, along the new v3 packages. I was
>thinking about renaming the v2 packages as dhcp2, dhcp-client2 and
>dhcp-relay2, and have the new v3 packages with the normal names (dhcp,
>OK, this is it. An
*** 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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!