[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cameron Patrick) wrote on 18.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 01:32:41AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> | On Thu, 2003-12-18 at 01:16, Nunya wrote:
> |
> | > Face it. You're practicing hate speech. You're not better than what
> | > you hate.
> | >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Henning Makholm) wrote on 18.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 03:05:46PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 14:39, Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Imagining it? I suppose it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joel Baker) wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:25:11PM -0800, Nunya wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 17, 2003 at 07:56:41PM -0700, Joel Baker wrote:
> > > For the record, however, if you consider saying that the lifestyle or
> > > beliefs of someone yo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nunya) wrote on 17.12.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 11:35:54AM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > | You are totally rationalizing.
> >
> > *sigh* From Branden's original post where he mentioned the names:
> >
> > > We might use names from Christian demono
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote on 02.06.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> See, it is nothing personal (you seem to take it that way), but
> packages with similar functionality should be questioned, and if the
Says who? I reject that assertion.
> A long description in an ITP would
> a) re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerfried Fuchs) wrote on 26.05.03 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please, don't simply massfile ITPs without thinking on their impact and
> without any deeper informations
Please don't assume someone jasn't thought about something just because
you haven't been personally info
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-05-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libemail-mime-encodings-perl
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SI/SIMON/Email-MIME-Encodings-1.0.tar.gz
* License
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-05-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libemail-localdelivery-perl
Version : 0.04
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SI/SIMON/Email-LocalDelivery-0.04.tar.gz
* License
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-05-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libemail-filter-perl
Version : 1.0
Upstream Author : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/S/SI/SIMON/Email-Filter-1.0.tar.gz
* License : Same as Perl.
Package: wnpp
Version: N/A; reported 2003-05-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libemail-simple-perl
Version : 1.4
Upstream Author : Simon Cozens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL :
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/R/RC/RCLAMP/Email-Simple-1.4.tar.gz
* License
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote on 30.07.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I don't think it offers much if anything over special-purpose staging
> areas as is being used for perl 5.8 right now.
It seems to me staging areas could solve a lot of these difficulties, yes.
I'm not clear on the curren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Langasek) wrote on 16.08.02 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From the heated discussion I've just had on IRC, I've gathered the
> following:
>
> * It is assumed that for the vast majority of C++ libs we ship, upstream
> has already transitioned to using the GCC 3.2 ABI, theref
kleptog@svana.org (Martijn van Oosterhout) wrote on 01.08.02 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> No reason, however in the docs there is an example line to put in apt.conf
Which docs?
What line?
> to automatically generate md5sum files for every package that doesn't
> contain them.
>
> So after you do a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miles Bader) wrote on 24.12.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Now maybe if we were using the RBL, DUL, and RSS lists... :-)
> >
>
> GNU mailing lists (supposedly) use RBL, but in a mode where `spam' isn't
> deleted, but rather jus
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Wirzenius) wrote on 24.12.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Robert van der Meulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Ignoring spam has made the internet the spam-ridden place it is right now.
>
> Spam hasn't been ignored for the past six years, thank you very much.
> It thrives regardles
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 25.12.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2000 at 08:43:51PM -0500, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > I have a comment: NO WAY IN HELL. The day that we start rejecting DUL
> > posts is the day that several people leave the project, me included. How
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacob Kuntz) wrote on 15.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Clint Adams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > No real reason? Only one package can listen in on port 25, and
> >
> > Only one package can listen on port 25 of one IP. It is possible to
> > have multiple packages listeni
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 14.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Joey Hess wrote:
> > You know, if apt could only support Reccommends, task packages could be
> I don't care for this much, it breaks the model that apt-get follows, it
Well, I'd *very very much
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett) wrote on 16.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 12:31:47 -0500 (+), Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 16, 2000 at 07:22:26PM +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > > Well, the FHS is contradicting itself here. On one hand, it says that
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 14.08.00 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"John" == John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >> No real reason? Only one package can listen in on port 25, and
>
> John> There is no real reason that all must listen on port 25.
>
> Then you and I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren O. Benham) wrote on 16.05.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, May 16, 1999 at 08:09:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Bristel) wrote on 14.05.99 in [EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >=20
> > > abandon those who run s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Bristel) wrote on 14.05.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> abandon those who run slink. Note that if linus did that, the 2.2.7 and
> 2.2.8 would never have come out because work had already begun on the 2.3
> kernels.
Umm, may I point out that 2.3.0 == 2.2.8? The difference is
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bdale Garbee) wrote on 26.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>
> > Hmmm. swinstall (HP-UX native I think) seems to support dependencies.
> > It's pretty ugly though and I don't know if there's a command line
> > version.
>
> Yes, you can d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 31.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 29360: point 1) is an issue for the release notes; I can't retroactively
> patch an old prerm;
You could, but it would be fairly ugly, and I'm not sure it's worth it.
Startegy: pre-depend on a package that does the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wichert Akkerman) wrote on 31.01.99 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Previously Michael Stone wrote:
> > > perl-suid 31904 [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Secuity hole with pe=
> rl (suidperl) and nosuid mounts on Linux] [13] (Darren Stalder <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]
.com>> )
> >=20
> > I'm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 17.12.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 1998, Juergen A. Erhard wrote:
>
> > > "Joey" == Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > Joey> A critical bug on an unimportant package is a sure bet to get
> > that package Joey> pulled
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter S Galbraith) wrote on 16.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> - If you are using some docs often on a 486, you end up uncompressing them
>because it's too slow otherwise.
I'm using a 486. Uncompressing text is "too slow"? Ridiculous.
On the other hand, I currently have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 16.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I disagree quite strongly. If the intent was to have
> uncompressed originals on the system we would have shipped them as
> such.
Indeed - the .debs would be smaller that way.
MfG Kai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Tille) wrote on 08.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> see at the people near you and look at yourself with the eyes of
> an Hitchhiker)
Can't. (Can you guess that I don't much like the Hitchhiker stuff?)
> - Another naming scheme without any background would be A, B,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Gertzfield) wrote on 16.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > "Brent" == Brent Fulgham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Brent> I'd like to chime in -- It's a real annoyance that the base
> Brent> disks don't set up lilo to let you boot into multiple
> Brent> oper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Maurer) wrote on 04.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On a related note, do we want to continue using names from pixar movies
> > now that Bruce is gone?
>
> i see no reason not to. they are nice names, the only problem is that we
> may be running out of good ones (i adm
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Slootman) wrote on 07.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue 06 Oct 1998, Robert Woodcock wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, what's the security track record on smail vs exim
> > for the last two years? The standard MTA should have a chance of being
> > secure from remo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marc Singer) wrote on 04.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What is the *right* way to sync to slink (or any other distribution)?
> I looked into dftp and found that it seems more like a method for
> installing new packages than keeping in sync with the most recent
> versions.
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joey Hess) wrote on 02.10.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is from the linux kernel mailing list. I find it pretty completly sums
> op my thoughts on all the new constitution and voting and policy voting
> stuff that we've been setting up. I haven't been vocal about this, but
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Woodcock) wrote on 10.06.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> * /etc/init.d/rc is modified to call a program that determines the order
> the scripts should be run in, on the fly. I figure this won't be much
> of a speed hit. Slrn can thread thousands of messages per second a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rev. Joseph Carter) wrote on 03.06.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 1998 at 12:59:50PM -0500, Stephen Carpenter wrote:
> > > No, because democracy is inefficient in our case.
> >=20
> > I would go a step further and say democracy is always inefficient, in
> > fact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brederlow) wrote on 07.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Rev. Joseph Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > [1 ]
> > On Fri, May 01, 1998 at 04:19:42PM +1000, John Boggon wrote:
> >
> > > Can someone tell me why a new distribution has to be started up just
> > > because the
aj@azure.humbug.org.au (Anthony Towns) wrote on 09.05.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, May 09, 1998 at 04:50:48PM +0300, Marc A. Volovic wrote:
> > 2. cons: alternative to make.
> > Likewise.
>
> Is there some more information about this somewhere?
Wasn't there an article ab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 03.05.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Raul" == Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Raul>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sendmail configuration is tough but it is also the best documented
> >> MTA bar none!
Raul>> Please don't
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Branden Robinson) wrote on 30.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am I the only one who feels that, to a large extent, ease of use *is* a
> technical problem?
No. Of course not.
How else to explain apt?
> I note that on April 20th, the "Gnome System Control Panel Project" was
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 29.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1. Focus on the User
>
> I'd like to have developers who program because they like to see
> their work in the hands of users, especially _naive_ users.
Well, I must say that while users are nice, naive users
Just seen on net.general:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bryan C. Andregg) wrote on 27.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 27 Apr 1998 07:52:37 -0500, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, YoYo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote: I would suppose that RedHat is doing well because of the e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 27.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 26.04.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > I would really like to see somethin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 24.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> of the old wording in the policy manual, which mentioned "onerous
> conditions" (of which this is one, IMHO) as a reason for things going
Nope. I really don't think it is.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote on 04.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It looks like it's fixed again. Thanks to whoever did it!
And now it's broken again:
803 14.04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mirror mismatch
925 15.04 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mirror mismatc
olly@lfix.co.uk (Oliver Elphick) wrote on 27.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> unix.hensa.ac.uksunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk
> wget http:1.97KB/s1.90KB/s
> wget ftp: 5.19KB/s5.42KB/s
> ftp: 4.2 Kbytes/sec
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Alex Yukhimets <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > Sections 1 and 2 above p
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Enrique Zanardi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not a dpkg expert, but AFAIK modifying directly the dpkg databases
> > (yes, almost everything under var/lib/dpkg are dpkg databases) is a
> > Wrong Thing (TM) In the cur
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I would really like to see something like '\h:\w\$ ' (or '\w\$ ' at
> least) in /etc/skel/.bashrc. Would it be against policy?
Policy 3.3.7 "'/etc/skel' should be as empty as we can make it."
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett) wrote on 23.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> > disagree.
> >
> >
> > Copyright (c) 1997-1998 by Armin Biere.
> >
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charles Briscoe-Smith) wrote on 24.04.98 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> The gist is this: most of the "obnoxious" advertising clauses in
> BSD-ish software specify a different sentence which must be mentioned
> on advertising mentioning the software. This means that if I build
> a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marcus Brinkmann) wrote on 23.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 1998 at 09:53:54AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > As far as I can tell this license is DFSG-free; please let me know if you
> > disagree.
>
> This is weird, especially because of point 3.
I can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 25.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Roderick Schertler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It's supposed to open /dev/tty instead of using stdin. This is the way
> > it works on all the systems I could get people to check for me, which
> > are Linux with libc5,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gregory S. Stark) wrote on 15.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Opening files in a large directory can be extremely inefficient in many Unix
> varieties. The kernel has to do a linear search for each the file. Linux 2.1
> should be faster because of the dentry stuff, but even so
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 13.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Marcus, I was just clarifying (once more) the status of gettext in Debian.
>
> It is in experimental because the author asked me not to distribute it
> "widely". This means that even if it is not accesable by dselect, w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 11.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Look at the whole sentence, please. There are indeed no
> requirements for the program to behave in any fashion; as long as the
No. There are no requirements, period. Look at the sentence yourself.
> I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 10.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I understand that it is fashionable in comp.lang.c to say that
> undefined behaviour means "It can corrupt memory, re-format your hard
> disk, or make monkeys fly out of your nose; all of these are ISO C
> c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eloy A. Paris) wrote on 10.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> According to fclose's man page, it will return EOF and set errno to
> EBADF if the argument is not an open stream.
That is not what the info docs for libc6 say:
Closing Streams
===
When a stream is clo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote on 10.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Therefore, I believe it would be prudent, as a temporary workaround
> for the kernel bug, to umount all local drives before umounting
> network drives. It is generally not a big deal if a network drive
> doesn't get umo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 09.04.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (2) /etc/skel/ already has a .bashrc and a .bash_profile.
It has? Isn't that against policy? I thought it said somewhere that Debian
must not put any files into /etc/skel/.
MfG Kai
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hamish Moffatt) wrote on 10.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I happened to copy the libc5 badblocks binaries onto my libc6
> system, for a project I'm working on, and for curiousity's sake,
> ran ldd on it;
>
> [10:12am] [EMAIL PROTECTED]:DLX.lilo/rd-tree/bin# ldd ./badblocks
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 09.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Moin Alex!
> >
> > AY> I would like to question the need for this requirement.
> >
> > ???
>
> Aren't you questioning my right to do that? :)
No, but it hardly seems reasonable to question this requirement.
> > AY>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Morton) wrote on 08.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> To the group, let me say:
> Those of you who saw my first message as an attack or a flame, what nice
Well, it was.
> little utpoia of the planet do you come from? sheesh! If that's all
> it takes to ruffle your
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) wrote on 07.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 7 Jan 1998, Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> > >
> > >> And thus spake Craig Sand
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 6 Jan 1998, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> (b) We set up a certain directory (say /usr/lib/cronjobs) where each
> package can install its own crontab file (/usr/lib/cronjobs/foo).
Use /etc/cron.often (or similar name). It will contain crontabs, not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Stephen Zander <[EMAIL P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Richard Braakman wrote:
>
> > Do we want all packages to include the Section and Priority fields?
>
> Probably.
I tend to do it like this:
* don't include them in the first version of the package
*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Stone) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Oliver Elphick (olly@lfix.co.uk):
> > Why does glibc2 not use long long (64 bits) for dates, insead of long int
> > (32 bits)? Surely we ought to change this now along with all the other
> > libc6 changes?
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fabrizio Polacco) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 6 Jan, Remco Blaakmeer wrote:
> >
> > I think the general opinion was "let the others take care of
> > not conflicting with us". So, the people on debs.fuller should make sure
> > that the version numbers they us
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Well, there is a problem with the Gregorian calendar that has to be dealt
> with in 2000 years or so (having to do with leap-millenia), but I figure
> if it's more than 100 years it's no problem.
That depends on what you call a proble
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 1998, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > I think that /usr/src should the be domain of the local admin.
> >
> > I don't think kernel-{header,source}-x.xx.deb should exist, really,
> > because I don't think source cod
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 06.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Stephen Zander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Martin Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Why does libc6 depend on kernel-header ?
> > >
> > > It's libc6-dev th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 5 Jan 1998, Karl M. Hegbloom wrote:
> > Perhaps the "/etc/crontab" shouldn't be a conffile; but created by
> > the installation scripts?
>
> Since /etc/crontab is actually a conffile (no matter if you tag it as
do everything in perl, debian/auto uses Data::Dumper format to store
settings
After working some hours on it today, I've come as far as producing stuff
like this:
# generated by ./autodeb-scan
$auto1 = {
"USERNAME" => "Kai Henningsen",
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If there is a reason to upload a new .deb package then that alone is
> sufficient to require an incremented version number. Every "new" release
> of a package should come with a "new" version. Only if an md5 sum of the
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 05, 1998 at 11:58:12PM +1100, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> > > Urgh, I hate it already. Can somebody post a rationale for
> > > the section of policy quoted abo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Amos Shapira) wrote on 05.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> |> a 64 bit variable, it's good for another 4000 years.
> |
> |Uhhh -- no. If it went from 32 bits to *33* bits, that would get us
>
> Actually, the current limit of 68 years
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Davies) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is a request for some feedback from current and potential users of GPC.
> I have GPC 2.0 compiled for hamm, built using GCC 2.7.2.3. The next
> version of GPC (currently 971001) is in beta, but is already more st
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eloy A. Paris) wrote on 01.01.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Well, when the original maintainer asked on -devel, I said that I'd take
> : it over, and I did. I have no idea why it landed on that list.
&
Hi Adam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Heath) wrote on 31.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> | On Wednesday, 31 December 97, at 2:18:00 PM
> | Kai wrote about "My own Libc6 progress and package adoption drive, and I
> > need a mas" Hi Adam,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Heath) wrote on 31.12.97 in
> > <[EM
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 31.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Please be aware that the GIF patent issue is for WRITERS only. Readers
> do not use the patented algorithm. Often you can put the writer in non-free
> and leave the rest of the program in main.
Indeed.
The problem is the compression
Hi Adam,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Heath) wrote on 31.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> adbbs
What for? Anything wrong with my adbbs package?
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 31.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Isn't there something *else* going on here as well? Namely, why does
> libc6-dev suddenly want kernel-headers, and a particular version at
> that, when neither it nor libc5-dev ever did before (and for
> good reasons?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 29.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I find this hard to believe. kernel-headers and kernel-source
> > packages write to the directories kernel-headers-X.X.XX and
> > kernel-source-X.X.XX. They create
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yann Dirson) wrote on 30.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On 30 Dec 1997, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote:
> >
> > > So, timezone (7.48-3) is installed, and "required", so dpkg won't
> > > remove it. timezones (2.06-1) is available, and "replaces/conflicts"
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Pfaff) wrote on 28.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is it sufficient to add to the Description something along the lines
> of:
>
> If you are a German citizen less than 18 years old, you are
> prohibited by law from using this program.
>
> or the equivalent translate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Sailer) wrote on 24.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Minivend is a GPL-ed online ordering application. It's worth looking at
***
> > (and I'm sure one of you will want to package it). See:
> >
> > http://www.minivend.com/mi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 25.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > I seem to recall that the case in question (it _was_ Atari vs. Amiga,
> > right?) still allowed you to run _the_very_same_kernel_ on both syste
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Leutloff) wrote on 22.12.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> --pgp-sign-Multipart_Mon_Dec_22_12:02:15_1997-1
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Tommi Virtanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> writes:
>
> I don't understand how to modify this address! 8-(
I'd gue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Martin Mitchell) wrote on 24.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > > > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
> > >
> > > No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
> >
> > Hardly. That would b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 22.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > As in, ISA vs. MCA vs. PCI? :-)
>
> No, as in e.g. Intel-PC vs. Sun :-)
Hardly. That would be a case of incompatible CPUs. Or does Sun produce x86
machines these days? Nothing is impossible ...
> Ok, you're right th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 22.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Dr. Drake Diedrich writes:
> > Before I put any effort into this, is anyone familiar with this law?
>
> This
>
> C Notice of Public Domain nature of MOPAC
> C
> C 'This computer program is a work of the United States
> C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David ROCHER) wrote on 14.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> package: doc-rfc
> version: 1997.12-1
>
> all files into doc-rfc have 1000,1000 for owner.
That was dpkg_1.4.0.19_i386-libc5.deb. With fakeroot 0.0-9.
Aargh! We _need_ proper version numbering for libc5 versions.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 18.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Is this any different from Intel packages that only make sense when
> > you have specific hardware installed? We have several of those.
>
> It's not just that you have different hardware installed, but you have
> a tota
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Santiago Vila) wrote on 17.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 17 Dec 1997, James Troup wrote:
>
> > Michael Alan Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > This is part of an email exchange Sven and I had. Simply put, I put
> > > in a new alpha binary of dpkg-1.4.0.19 that r
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 16.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> "Gonzalo A. Diethelm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Perhaps you could point out how I could force all of those people
> > with broken mailers and/or ideas to use one of your great mail
> > clients, so I won't get four, f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Welton) wrote on 17.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 1997 at 09:22:51PM -0800, Guy Maor wrote:
> > According to Stevens on page 300, writev is atomic, so I would regard
> > Linux's behavior as a bug.
>
> On one tty I start wserv, the offending program with
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roman Hodek) wrote on 17.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are now some packages for m68k that make sense only on a
> specific machine type. Currently we have such packages only for Atari,
> but others can follow easily. The packages are nvram and setsccserial,
> and atari-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Enrique Zanardi) wrote on 16.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 15 Dec 1997, Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> > Uh? Why don't you just do...
> >
> > int p[2];
> > pipe(p);
> > if(!fork())
> > {
> > dup2(p[1],2);
> > exec...
> > }
> > /* now you can read the output fro
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
