On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 08:30:05AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Your message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] has been quarantined!
>
> You only need to do this once, but this time, you must verify
> that you are a human.
I almost wonder if someone sent this intentionally in light of the
TDMA bug thread
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:07:42AM +0400, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> So buidd + distcc on a slow m68k/arm/whatever, and distccd on a fast P4 or
> Athlon, or even on several of those. This is expected to reduce the compile
> time to almost the same as it is on x86 :).
I'm not sure that's true;
On Mon, Aug 04, 2003 at 09:14:08PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Uh, no. I am aware of that. That, however, did not prevent it from
> running the wrong GCC. v2.4.21 of the kernel had a problem with 3.3. It
> would die repeatedly on the same line in ide-cd.h. I did tell make to use
> gcc-2.95
On Sun, Aug 03, 2003 at 04:37:53AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> - eventually packaging the mutt CVS tree, as the author has not made any
> new snapshots in the last months
He doesn't seem to be committing much, either. A patch I sent was
repeatedly ignored.
On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 12:36:52AM +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> If you are both a DD and upstream, why didn't you package it yourself?
Because he's also a troll.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 03:06:17AM +0200, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> > Really? Seems wrong to me.
>
>Indeed. MMX and PPro are orthogonal features.
Wasn't there "Pentium MMX" in between? I have at least one computer
with one of those processors.
On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 02:35:18PM +1200, Philip Charles wrote:
> As long as these doc's exist someone will make money by providing the
> means of reading them, if OOo does not.
That someone is Microsoft.
> IMHO, the problem has been resolved.
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 03:10:09AM +1100, Andrew Lau wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> Can anyone else shed light on fate of Jared "Solomon" Johnson:
I talked to him on IRC for the first time in 6 months about a month
ago. He said he had moved and has not had Internet access for the past
3 months. Ap
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 03:10:05PM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> > Are you aware that ffmpeg need lame ?
> yes and no:
>
> yes I am aware of that
> and
> no not "need"
>
> --enable-mp3lame) mp3lame="yes"
> (the default is "no")
>
> but since nvrec requires mp3lame I am trouble anyway ;)
We
On Wed, Aug 21, 2002 at 09:39:56AM +0200, Marc Leeman wrote:
> * Package name: ffmpeg
> Version : 0.46
> Upstream Author : Fabrice Bellard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://ffmpeg.sourceforge.net/
> * License : LGPL
> Description : FFmpeg Streaming Multi
On Tue, Aug 06, 2002 at 10:31:47AM -0500, Drew Scott Daniels wrote:
> I think it's worth supporting as an interesting program. It might produce
> faster binaries, it might produce smaller binaries (usually both go hand
> in hand, but not always)
I'd just like to chime in on this. I actually suffer
There appears to be a list named debian-kde. PLEASE use that. -devel
is already clogged enough, and should be reserved for extremely
general or miscellaneous discussion.
On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 09:21:11AM -0500, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Quake and doom have been released for ages. I am not aware of any
> way to play them without using non-free data files. There was a group
> that was trying to put together free data for Quake, but I don't
> think they're close to
On Sun, Dec 23, 2001 at 10:53:06AM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> Several emulators (apple2, atari800, gnuboy, gsnes9x, gtkiemu, nestra
> pose, uae, vice, and xtrs) from contrib should also move to main
> immediately then, as you can't argue that there will never be free
> ROMs for those either. Fu
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 12:54:15PM +1000, Jason Thomas wrote:
> > Branden, stop making hysterical comments.
>
> Thats not really fair now is it! Branden is trying to make the
> procedure better if his suggestions are wrong how about making
> constructive criticism.
Tell that to James Troup.
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 08:15:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> When a package that has been ITP'ed is finally packaged, I'd like to
> suggest that it be reassigned to ftp.debian.org.
Branden, stop making hysterical comments.
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 11:54:56PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed that using gpg with debian-keyring 2001.09.03
> results in excessively slow trustdb-related things?
This is exactly what I was complaining about on IRC a few days ago. I
simply am not going to use the Debian keyr
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:33:29PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> That's documented
Where?
On Fri, Sep 07, 2001 at 11:18:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> abiword 108986 open serious
> abiword 109580 open grave
I'm working on a new version of Abiword, will check if it helps with
these.
On Sat, May 05, 2001 at 09:44:07PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> The thing is, kernel-headers should not be used at all unless you're
> compile glibc, or modules. Anything else will break.
So you're saying it's better to hardcode syscall numbers and stuff
than using the kernel headers? Sre...
demo ROM in
/usr/share/doc/examples to work around the issue.
Note that zsnes will be the first free SNES emulator available in
Debian.
Source: zsnes
Section: otherosfs
Priority: optional
Maintainer: Aaron Lehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Build-Depends
On Mon, Apr 30, 2001 at 02:25:34AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> Why would you keep something around if you don't want to run it? Debian
> makes the (correct) assumption that if you've installed something, you
> want to run it.
That's not true. inetd is depended on by the lame metapackage netbas
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Now I agree that there's lots of bloat in Gnome, but I have to disagree
> with you about Glib. Glib provides many handy routines (such as linked
> list management, and a threads API) for C programmers. Having Glib provide
> these routines is a much better choice than
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 03:00:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
>
> Hmm, is this a typo in the domain name?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> unrouteable mail domain "nsaledov.com"
Typo. He's at nasledov.com.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 10:25:46AM +0200, J?r?me Marant wrote:
> I mainly focused on low memory consumption, and Encompass meet this
> requirement.
Yes, but only when you ignore the bloat from the horrible Gnome
libraries that entangle it. "Encompas doesn't take much ram, the ram
is all taken
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 08:27:18PM -0400, Josh Huber wrote:
> now what do we have?
>
> kernel-image-version--
To be more complete we could have:
kernel-image
I've said before that over 2000 kernel configuration options exist and
it's obviously not feasable to make a standard binar
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 05:52:53AM +1000, Daniel Stone wrote:
> ECN trips broken stuff. Happy now, Oh Mighty
> Pedant? :)
You could say the same thing about Debian. It can be incompatible with
broken brains warped by certain other OS's...
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [OK, ECN isn't
> broken, the routers are, I know, but same effect. ECN breaks stuff].
No, you still are incorrect. The routers are already broken. Use of
ECN merely exhibits evidence of the colossal brain-damage in the routers.
Quoting Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Why enable ECN at all, if all it effectively does is break stuff? AFAIK,
> there's no systems out "in the wild" that actually use ECN to make a
> difference. All that's happening is that peoples' systems are being
> broken.
> Which is sub-optimal.
I wou
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:03:41AM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> It's not silly, it is an extremely good idea. I'm very pleasantly
> surprised to hear that they did that. It is basically not possible to
> write safe suid X programs.
IIRC it also disallows SGID, which breaks some games that onl
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:47:14AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> No, but they can at least compile one for i386 easily as we're providing
> matching kernel-headers. You're in exactly the same situation
> (i.e., without binary modules) anyway if you compile your own kernel so
> IMHO it's a moot point.
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:17:35AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > One file, composing of a few kilobytes, is an autogenerated header
> > consisting of #define correctives enumerating the configuration.
>
> I think it's fairly clear that you were trying suggest that this is the
> ONLY difference betw
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:06:21AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Bullshit. Why don't you do a diff instead of talking about something that
> you have no idea about?
Do you deny that the file named autoconf.h contains precicely what I
suggested? I did not attempt to present an exhaustive description
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 09:05:42AM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 02:10:48PM -0700, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> > If they're binary-only, I doubt much compilation will be necessary.
>
> They don't just come out of nowhere you know...
"Binary-only&q
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 12:33:25AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:30:47PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:47:44AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > what is the DIFFERENCE between kernel-headers-2.4.2 and all the other
> > > 2.4.2 kernel headers pack
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:01:39PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> So that they can compile them? If you don't understand why we should do
> that, then there's no point in us two arguing about it.
If they're binary-only, I doubt much compilation will be necessary.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 07:27:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> In any case, binary modules are a fact of life I'm afraid.
Bull. We are Debian, not fucking RedHat or Mandrake. We strive to
exist without non-free software and using its existance as an excuse
to make your packages far worse is a compl
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 11:35:12AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> Incidentally, I assume the temporarily decompressed executables created
> by UPX are mode 700?
I would hope that they have the same permissions as the originals. And
I don't want to imagine what might happen with a suid excecutable...
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 10:34:38PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> I meant to say binary modules.
Maybe that's the problem! Binary modules are an abomination and should
NOT be distributed seperate from a binary kernel.
Again, refer what craig sanders has to say.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 11:39:07PM -0700, David Whedon wrote:
> Recent versions of upx can compress a linux bzImage (I've seen 13% shaved off
> a bzImage). debian-installer may use it to squeeze more onto the single
> floppy (kernel + initrd with modules).
Isn't that slightly redundant? A bzIma
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 08:33:43AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> is there such a thing as cross-compilation for the kernel?
Yes - porting to new architectures would be nearly impossible
otherwise.
kernel-package even supports cross-compilation IIRC.
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 02:47:36PM +0200, Roland Mas wrote:
> Nonono, we should automate it as much as possible. I envision a
> global Makefile somewhere, and a ports/ directory, and a
> make-world.sh, and... And then Debian GNU/BSD! Yay!
I've been spending a lot of time starting to design a po
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 09:44:01PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> just as you stated you'd be filing bug-reports to get 2.2.17 kernel
> image removed from the archive, i'll be filing "package should not
> exist" bugs against all the excess kernel-image bugs.
Alternatively, you could bring it up wit
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 12:22:33PM +0800, zhaoway wrote:
> > I should build my own kernel, right?
>
> Sure, you're a computer geek. But remember we don't expect our users
> to be all computer elites. No, they're no dummies. Think about
> scientists, etc. who just simply don't have that much enough
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:38:42PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> This is exactly our disagreement. My position is that it is well within
> our capabilities to make this unnecessary. And you disagree with that
> which is fine with me.
It was recently calculated that there are over 2000 kernel option
On Sat, Apr 21, 2001 at 12:20:21PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> What is upx good for?
> For all applications that are not used in critical environment, i.e.
> without enough free disc space, or when they are started to often, so
> the decompression time may be too long.
> For example, I will compre
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 03:49:01PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Balderdash:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~>time grepmail foo /dev/null
> 0.29user 0.01system 0:00.29elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 0maxresident)k
First time:
$ time grepmail foo /dev/null
grepmail foo /dev/null 0.36s user 0.05s system 39%
bility can not be entrusted to brand-new developers (which is
likely the case), I would appreciate suggestions on other ways I could
help.
Thanks,
Aaron Lehmann
pgpOmXfUMfXld.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 06:47:01PM +0200, Yotam wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> > 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
> > "unstable" and will never encourage a non-developer to run "unstable"
>
> Why shouldn't a develope
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:35:51AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> Now that you and Eray have publically complained about the team's slowness,
> that means that after you complete the NM process, you both be joining the
> NM team to help your fellow developers get processed quicker, right?
>
> I'm
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> 5) A Debian Developer will never knowingly run a production server on
> "unstable" and will never encourage a non-developer to run "unstable".
I don't see how this affects the Debian community. If anything, it
would result in more
On Mon, Jan 08, 2001 at 10:17:42AM -0600, Vince Mulhollon wrote:
> "waiting for DAM approval, whenever that is supposed to happen" (emphasis
> on the "supposed to happen")
No offense to the DAM, but I share Eray's pedicament and feel that I
could definately contribute more effectively if I had th
> Package: grepmail
> Description: search mailboxes for mail matching an expression
> Grepmail looks for mail messages containing a pattern, and prints the
> resulting messages. It can handle compressed mailbox files, and can search
> the header or body of emails. Usage is very similar to grep.
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 05:20:42PM +0200, Eray 'exa' Ozkural wrote:
> Package: xserver-xfree86
> Version: 4.0.1-9
> Severity: important
I am so sick of bug reports being CC'd to debian-devel. That's what
debian-bugs-dist is for. They get mailed to the maintainer anyway,
which may be someone who ac
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 12:04:14AM +0200, Eray Ozkural (exa) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ telnet borg
> Trying 139.179.21.143...
> Connected to borg.cs.bilkent.edu.tr.
> Escape character is '^]'.
> Debian GNU/Linux woody borg.cs.bilkent.edu.tr
> login: root
> Password:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# echo
On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 12:15:50AM -0800, Erik Winn wrote:
> Here is the first obstacle - not really a big one, but I spent all day
> digging around and couldn't really find any tools for this one: we want to be
> able to clone the machines easily over the local net.
> boot floppy that asks only
On my Athlon, Linux 2.2 sees only 65M of memory without using mem=.
Linux 2.4-test seems to fix the problem and detects the memory
automatically.
On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 05:56:52PM -0600, Art Edwards wrote:
> I just purchased two Athalon-based systems, each with 768M of ram.
> However, under debia
57 matches
Mail list logo
