The debian-private mailing list leak, part 1. Volunteers have complained about Blackmail. Lynchings. Character assassination. Defamation. Cyberbullying. Volunteers who gave many years of their lives are picked out at random for cruel social experiments. The former DPL's girlfriend Molly de Blanc is given volunteers to experiment on for her crazy talks. These volunteers never consented to be used like lab rats. We don't either. debian-private can no longer be a safe space for the cabal. Let these monsters have nowhere to hide. Volunteers are not disposable. We stand with the victims.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Let's go!!! Debian 2.0 will be _top_ quality



Hello everyone,

just wanted to share all little experience I have just had.

It happens that I maintain the ncpfs package. When I ported it to
libc6 it took me a while to figure out what was needed to make it able
to work under libc6. First, I got lots of compile errors due to these
userland utilities including lots of kernel headers. I solved that in
the usual way of including libc headers instead of the kernel headers.

But the worse problem showed up after I compiled succesfully the
package and tried to use: when I mounted a NetWare volume I got the
wrong permissions in the mount point, like this:

bestia:~# ll -d novell/
d---------   1 root     root          512 Nov 25  1960 novell/

The file permissions had to be drwxr-xr-x. Also, ncpumount did not
work and root had to use umount to unmount the file system.

It turned out to be that the variables uid_t, gid_t and mode_t are 2
bytes long in libc5 but 4 bytes long in libc6 so I had to change some
kernel include files to use __kernel_mode_t and so on instead of
mode_t and so on. After changing this the utilities started to work as
expected.

Well, since it took me some time to realize this, I was surprised to
see that RedHat 5.0 included a libc6 based ncpfs package. I was
expecting them to have the same problemas I had. Well, you won't
believe this but they _released_ their ncpfs package with _this_
problem. This leads me to thiink that they did not even test their
stuff before releasing it.

I remember that a couple of developers asked me why I hadn't uploaded
the ncpfs package and I told them that I was having problems with it,
that it compiled succesfully under libc6 but wasn't working as
expected. After I solved the problems I did upload the stuff.

So, why I am telling you about all this? Well, because I think we are
doing an excellent and outstanding job with Hamm. It may be taking
longer than expected but we are doing it right. RedHat on the other
hand, rushed the release of their new distribution probably because of
market pressures but they released a buggy product. I already have had
requests from RedHat users that want a working ncpfs package. Of
course I told them: use Debian :-)

I bet the same happens with their smbfs package because it's the same
story as with ncpfs (I tried installing it using alien but did not
have luck - it looks like a new rpm is needed).

Let's keep up the good work!!! Let's test, test and double test Hamm
before we release it!!!

Any comments?

See ya!

E.-


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .