Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:15:43AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
patch.
>>> Could you please tell me why this is such a huge deal?
>> hmm. I'm given to understand that
Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:15:43AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
patch.
>>> Could you please tell me why this is such a huge deal?
>> hmm. I'm given to understand that
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 12:15:43AM -, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>> Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
>>> patch.
>> Could you please tell me why this is such a huge deal?
> hmm. I'm given to understand that you don't get annoyed when people
> are (to be genero
Steinar H. Gunderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 08:26:09AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
>> patch.
>>
>> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>>
>> Do you have an excuse?
> Could y
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 08:26:09AM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote:
> Martin Schulze has been told more than once that this was not an OpenBSD
> patch.
>
> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>
> Do you have an excuse?
Could you please tell me why this is such a huge deal?
/* Steina
Otavio Salvador <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He can fix a previous entry and cite it in next version.
Perhaps 4 months is too short a time for him to correct it.
--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
Thomas Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> >> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
>> [...]
>> > After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>> > Do you have an excuse?
>>
>> Why do you ask if y
Thomas Viehmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
>>> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> [...]
>> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
>> Do you have an excuse?
> Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
> Hint: You could always look at the date of the actual up
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 02:46:56PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Thomas Dickey wrote:
> >> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> [...]
> > After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
> > Do you have an excuse?
>
> Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
Because Martin's actions are m
Thomas Dickey wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
[...]
> After the second time, there is no plausible excuse.
> Do you have an excuse?
Why do you ask if you know there isn't?
Hint: You could always look at the date of the actual update.
Maybe you just file a minor bug, that would hel
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 08:20:14AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 07:47:40 +0200
> Source: lynx
> Binary: lynx
> Architecture: source i386
> Version: 2.8.5-2sarge2
> Distribution: stable-security
> Urgency: hi
11 matches
Mail list logo