On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 09:29:28AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > It IS implied that its FULLY gnu-su compatible, if it is not then it
>
> Where did you find that? I never read it.
See control file, under provides.
>
> > should not provide su, very very simple..
>
> But then gnu-su is not yo
On Sun, Oct 18, 1998 at 11:54:28AM +0100, M.C. Vernon wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Thomas Lakofski wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I noticed that with the transition to frozen, as expected, packages too
> > unstable to be in frozen have vanished (on ftp.debian.org, at least). I
> > hope I can expect a
On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 10:30:16PM -0400, Brian Almeida wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 1998 at 07:17:03PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > rvplayer does not work under Linux 2.1, if that's what you're running.
> Why not? I noticed today that it wasn't working...are there any fixes?
Its a bug in rvplayer
(Before I go on I should note that I'm in a sleep deprived state at the
moment)
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 05:37:18PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I tried to reproduce this bug but cannot.
>
> >Package: secure-su
> >Version: 980403-0.3
>
> Exactly my version.
>
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/# su -s /
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 01:51:25PM +, Jakob Borg wrote:
> I may be clueless, but could someone explain to me why this license is=20
> automatic ticket to non-free?
I may be just a clueless however let me highlight..
>
> 6. Legal
> This software can be used freely for any purpose. It can be di
On Fri, Oct 16, 1998 at 02:54:53PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Are you trolling? As I've said 3 times already (at least): because
> they only affect one architecture. And because there are perfectly
> valid reasons to do binary-only NMUs (which you seem
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:45:49PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 03:29:34PM -0700, Joey Hess wrote:
> > theone wrote:
> > > Names after Slink is very simple. They should just be named after
> > > userfriendly characters.
> >
> > Oooh.. that means our releases would even h
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 05:31:10PM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Hmm. We have zless to less gz'd files.
zless nothing, a simple lesspipe.sh works great, for bigger stuff a not
so simple lesspipe.sh (Can give a real complete one if you want, its
what I use) works GREAT...
Gives file listings for
Ok, fine, then please insert a pointer to the patchs in the description,
Sorry for that..
But that still leaves the rest of my argument fully intact, and someone
stated in past messages that they sent the patchs directly to the
maintainer and NOT through the BTS, for a binary only NMU.
Zephaniah
I don't really want to get into this, I've got enough people mad at me
for filing some bug reports, but I think this needs to be said, anyways.
On Thu, Oct 15, 1998 at 02:54:02AM +0200, Hartmut Koptein wrote:
>
> > But you're missing my point. Why does a binary-only NMU give you the right
> > to s
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 12:04:29PM -0400, Christopher C Chimelis wrote:
>
> On Wed, 14 Oct 1998, Brian White wrote:
>
> > Could I get some official word on which architectures wish to be included
> > in the 2.1 release of Debian? Thanks!
>
> So far, Alpha is looking "near" ready and we are shoo
On Wed, Oct 14, 1998 at 03:36:54AM -0700, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ok, do we have a consensus?
> > 2.8 should go back in slink, but marked as a oldlib.
> >
> > All packages which we have source to should be recompiled with 2.8 if
> > possable?
On Tue, Oct 13, 1998 at 12:54:27PM -0700, Ben Gertzfield wrote:
> > "Ray" == Ray writes:
>
> Ray> Personally, I'd rather see the packages that still depend on
> Ray> libstdc++2.8 recompiled for libstdc++2.9 .
>
> Of course, of course, nobody's arguing that. APT will be recompiled
>
On Sun, Oct 11, 1998 at 11:28:06AM -0400, Roderick Schertler wrote:
> On 11 Oct 1998 03:08:22 -0700, "Darren/Torin/Who Ever..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> said:
> > Andy Dougherty, in an immanent manifestation of deity, wrote:
> >>
> >> After some thought, I think I'd recommend that perl5.005_xx retain
I'm not going to get into the debate at all at the moment however as I
was reading through it I noticed that this message did not match the
signature, would someone care to varify who actualy sent this message
and what the contents were when it was signed?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull.
On Sat, Oct
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 03:05:17PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
> > just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
> > be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY r
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 08:42:57AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> Quoting J.H.M. Dassen Ray" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > I'm not aware of any software in slink that must be updated to work with 2.2
> > properly (with the exception of pcmcia-cs); slink currently runs fine with
> > 2.1.x (which I suspect
On Fri, Oct 09, 1998 at 02:07:15PM +0200, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On 9 Oct 1998, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > Santiago> There are a lot of packages that would have to be recompiled
> > Santiago> for Linux 2.2. This will take time and a lot of testing.
> >
> > I can see pcmcia (28-Sep-98 is needed) and
In light of the perl issues (see my last message) and the message Linus
just sent off to linux-kernel about 2.1.125 and 2.2.0p1 could the freeze
be pushed back a week to see if we should QUICKLY re-target slink
towards 2.2.0?
Thanks.
Zephaniah E, Hull..
pgpL2Z9IpY4sx.pgp
Description: PGP signat
Ok, after some thought, and fielding a LOT of perl questions on #debian,
I've come up with a more workable idea which gives us much better
handling for the next time something like this happens..
Rename perl to perl5.005, version 02-2 or such..
Then use the alternatives setup to decide which perl
Before I say anything let me state that I am, currently, not even a
registered Debian developer, just a user, however..
I'd suggest that you take a look at the debian web page
(www.debian.org), specificly the Social Contract
(http://www.debian.org/social_contract), including the DFSG (Debian Free
Debian 2.4 (Erwin/Ix86!)
Debian 2.5 (Erwin/iWhack!)
I'm sure that Erwin will be on other platforms by the time we get to
2.6.. (=:]
Zephaniah E, Hull, <--- A big fan of Erwin..
On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 12:19:59AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 20:09:51 +1300, theone wrote:
>
> >Na
On Tue, Oct 06, 1998 at 11:20:45PM -0700, Chris Waters wrote:
> I think I'd almost rather switch to Red Hat than use the "Beeblebrox"
> release. I mean, what's next? Putting pictures of maintainer's pets on
> the Debian web page? :-)
Let me get some nice pictures of my kitten, taz, she is a cu
We may want to coordinate with them for some of the machines we will be
bringing in, its definitely a worthy cause..
Zephaniah E, Hull.
- Forwarded message from Vernard Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vernard Martin)
Subject: [ale] Lo
24 matches
Mail list logo
