of this also works on a system with
> sysvinit?
Obviously it would be better to make ti work with cron. Ideally it
would go into cron.daily which I assume works with systemd too.
But if you do just the systemd thing, I think if someone sends you a
patch to make it work with cron I think you
KatolaZ writes ("Re: Debian Buster release to partially drop non-systemd
support"):
> The problem that spurred this thread is that sysvinit needs a
> maintainer. That's why some of us are here: our intention is to help
> with maintaining sysvinit in Debian if possible, since we will keep
> maintai
(dropping -devel)
Tino Mettler writes ("Re: A small thanks to the kFreeBSD porters"):
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > While fixing the bug on a porterbox I got very helpful IRC support
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> did you get this on a p
I would like to share a good experience I had with the kFreeBSD porter
team. On Sunday afternoon I foolishly uploaded a package which, if I
had thought about it, I ought to have known would FTBFS on FreeBSD.
Less than 4 hours later I had a bug report (#766913) from Steven
Chamberlain, who had tri
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Potential issues for most ports (Was: Re: Bits from
the Release Team (Jessie freeze info))"):
> On 2013-11-03 16:03, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> > http://udd.debian.org/bugs.cgi?release=jessie_or_sid&merged=ign&fnewerval=7&kfreebsd=1&sortby=severity&sorto=desc&cseverity
Niels Thykier writes ("Re: Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
> On 2013-10-29 16:05, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I'm keen that Debian should continue to support a wide range of
> > architectures. Would it help if I, as a DD, volunteered to spon
Niels Thykier writes ("Bits from the Release Team (Jessie freeze info)"):
> Results of porter roll-call
> ===
...
> Summary table:
> Arch || DDs || NMs/DMs || Other || Total
> - ---++-++-++---++--
> armel || 5 || 0 |
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Upstart & kFreeBSD port for Debian"):
> This is interesting to know. Out of curiosity, if you don't intend to
> license your patch under the Canonical CLA, what was your aim in doing this
> port?
Perhaps the intent is a long-term fork. If someone wants to maintain
an
This whole conversation seems baffling to me. Have any of the people
posting opinions actually looked at the source code of the two libcs ?
glibc is a complex horror [1]; the BSD libc is a fairly nice and clean
implementation. It seems to me that there is little doubt which libc
we would prefer
Sorry to (sort of) bring licence politics into this, but:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The source for apt is at http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~mjg59/debian-netbsd/apt
>- I believe that the only changes I made to it were some patches from the
>fink project
10 matches
Mail list logo
