On Sun, Oct 03, 1999 at 01:55:22AM -0500, Brad wrote: > On Sat, 2 Oct 1999, Damir J. Naden wrote: > > Hi Brad; unless Mutt is confused, you wrote: > > > Hmmm... exactly 80-column lines, more or less. 72 or 76 is much better > > > though, it leaves room for replies.
> > Ooops, sorry, I don't know how that happened; my vimrc files specs 76 > > columns, > > maybe I need separate command in muttrc? > i was partially wrong too. You have 78 column lines, not 80 ;) > As you can see the line above, with the two characters inserted for > quoting the ',' hits the very right margin of an 80-column-width display. Damir, are you sure mutt is using vim? If you have nvi installed and haven't adjusted the alternatives vi will default to that and if you normally use a shell alias to select your vi mutt won't pick that up. > > And if upstream guys do their thing, we may be looking into 2.4 kernel > > pretty soon- does that mean another Debian stable release will be one > > step back ( when potato become stable it'll rely on 2.2 kernel). > Depends if potato is frozen before they get 2.4 out. Vague rumors tell of > a November target for a potato freeze, and a January release for 2.4... Of > course, being rumors, these could easily be wrong. I would hope that we would late at least a month before releasing with a new kernel - assuming it worked well to start off with. Waiting for 2.4 and testing it would probably delay the release of Potato even more than it is already. > > Maybe we should have another directory then for up-to-date-stable, > > which all could download from at their own risk (which we do anyway, > > not like anyone is guaranteeing anything in the first place). > This has been proposed, according to other posts in this thread. IIRC, the > plan was to allow an unstable package into semi-stable only after X length > of time without bug reports, etc. That idea is intented to be closer to unstable than stable - at this point, there would probably be as much hassle updating to the in-between release as there is updating to Potato. Not that there's much hassle with Potato right now. > Netgod also supposedly keeps some unstable packages compiled for slink, > and i hear the Gnome people make debs for stable of their latest releases. The stable GNOME packages are actually produced by the Debian maintainers - they're just distributed from the GNOME site. > > I am no computer wizard. And when I read about all the development > > currently going on in Linux world, people are forgetting that > > semi-commercial applications ( like StarOffice and netscape) still > > rely on libc6 and not new libc. > libc6 is the same as glibc 2. StarOffice used to depend on glibc 2.0 (as > opposed to the 2.1 in slink), but they fixed that AFAIK. Netscape has as To explain it a bit more clearly: glibc 2.0 is binary compatible with glibc 2.1. If programs break when linked against 2.1 then that is a bug in the program (typically trying to use internal features). -- Mark Brown mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Trying to avoid grumpiness) http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~broonie/ EUFS http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/filmsoc/
pgp1cRCUfIpxo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
