On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> Jeez, each time this topic comes up people start throwing out stupid
> ideas. Just run a spam filter will yah?
Sorry, but your suggestion to use a spam filter *is* the stupid idea.
If this may be fixed by simply "running a spam filter", why such spa
On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Um, it looks like new versions of 'hurd' have been uploaded several
> times since this bug was marked 'pending'. Is it actually fixed; can it
> be closed? (If not, why is it still marked 'pending'?)
This bug was reported in April 2003, and the last
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> ld.so.1 breaks a bit if you compile it with gcc 3.3.1 on GNU/Hurd,
Please note that if you are using the Debian gcc packages, then it would
be really gcc-3.3 version 3.3.2-3. On Debian, gcc_3.3.1-2 is a
dependency package which does not contain anyth
> I made 2 minor patches for python2.3 and hope this will be useful.
>
> This one solves the linking problem with libX11 :
> (i mean the clean way, not using LD_LIBRARY_PATH as someone told me)
Currently, you have to use LD_LIBRARY_PATH to run any X binary. This
is a general problem which is not s
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 11:56:06PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > It's Debian who decided (implicitly, by not special-casing the Hurd) that
> > the Debian python package (for which I asked for help to compile) should be
>
On Wed, 19 Nov 2003, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 02:10:07PM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > [Moving this to bug-hurd since this has nothing todo with Debian]
>
> Ok but don't drop the CC, it's still a porting issue Debian is interested in.
Indeed.
It's Debian who decided (i
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 02:05:27PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> >
> > This is normal dpkg behaviour.
> >
> > You should get the right permissions if you reinstall the system from
> > scratch using base-files_3.0.3 (alternatively, you can change them
> >
