Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> Brian Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
I completely agree, and hereby question whether the secretary is capable
of being impartial
The following is a listing of packages for which help has been requested
through the WNPP (Work-Needing and Prospective Packages) system in the
last week.
Total number of orphaned packages: 187 (new: 20)
Total number of packages offered up for adoption: 99 (new: 6)
Total number of packages request
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:10:54AM +0100, JanC wrote:
> On 1/17/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about renaming Maintainer to Debian-Maintainer in Ubuntu's binary
> > packages, and having a specific Ubuntu-Maintainer?
>
> This should probably happen in a way that all (or most
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 20:49 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Goswin von Brederlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
[snip]
> (And really, data about which mirrors would be dropped would help:
> maybe we can buy *them* a disk. Disks are cheap!)
Unless the shelf is full, there's no more plugs left
Le jeudi 19 janvier 2006 à 16:38 +, Adam D. Barratt a écrit :
> On Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:35 AM, Jérôme Warnier
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > After the last update of OOo in Sid (aka Unstable), I wonder if it is
> > generally considered acceptable to keep obsolete packages in
> > e
Good afternoon,
Vera
Good Bye
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
Vera
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Jérôme Warnier]
> Or even better: a list of all packages already installed on my system
> which have an experimental version?
There might be a better way, but assuming you have experimental in your
sources.list...
t=$(tempfile);
awk > $t '/^Package:/{print "^" $2 "$"}' \
/var/lib/apt/li
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> The compromise we struck with upstream was that we would not give
> the user a system with a "broken" Python.
So upstream objects to the separate packaging of python-minimal unless
all of python is installed when python-minimal is installed (which in
Ubuntu's case is: alwa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 01:47:18PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 09:23:30PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> > > * Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-1
Joe Wreschnig writes:
> On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 12:12 +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I don't know what's actually in (or more importantly not in)
> > python2.4-minimal though.
>
> I'm eyeballing right now. Things that jump out at me:
> * No character encoding, translation, or locale handling.
> *
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 05:58:20PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> For what it's worth, we've caught hell from the ruby community for
> breaking the standard library in to its component parts and not
> installing it all by default. This problem has been largely abrogated
> as of late, but I'd rather
Joey Hess writes:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> > FWIW the relevant design docs from when this was done in Ubuntu are
> > here:
> >
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EssentialPython (requirements)
> > https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PythonInEssential (details)
> >
> > The rationale for the set of included module
I wrote:
> Suppose Ubuntu were to cease claiming[0] that it gives back to Debian.
> Would everyone be happy then? I doubt it.
>
> [0] Here: http://ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship?highlight=%28debian%29
> there's a claim that "they send their bugfixes to the Debian developers
> responsible for that
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > /tmp/app/1/image /tmp/app/1 cramfs,iso9660 user,noauto,ro,loop,exec 0 0
> >
> > Doesn't this introduce a local root exploit? A user can easily write
> > their own /tmp/app/1/image file which contains, say, a setuid root bash
> > executable.
>
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 07:35:27AM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> However, we don't have to do this annually; with a 2048-bit key,
> replacing every five years and generating the new key one year before
> the old one expires should be safe at present.
That's true for the crypto strength issue, ho
So is it safer for me to use backports or to get ubdated software from
testing? Which will be more stable on my stable system?
_
Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 10:34:11 +0100, Jérôme Warnier wrote:
[...]
> BTW, is there a way to list all packages in experimental?
aptitude search '~Aexperimental'
> Or even better: a list of all packages already installed on my system
> which have an experimental version?
aptitude search '~i~Aexperime
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 04:09:28AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Jérôme Warnier]
> > Or even better: a list of all packages already installed on my system
> > which have an experimental version?
>
> There might be a better way, but assuming you have experimental in your
> sources.list...
>
Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> aj@azure.humbug.org.au:
[...]
> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is tota
Wouter Verhelst wrote on debian-devel@lists.debian.org:
> [Re-adding Cc to Kurt, as he's mentioned he isn't subscribed]
>
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:20:26PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > > The klik client installation needs root privileges once, to add 7 lines
> > > li
also sprach Jacob Bensabat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.20.1703 +0100]:
> Do you know about an implementation of libkdtree that works with
> MS visual C++ (6.0 or 7.*) ?
No. My library is ANSI C++ compatible. If MSVC can't handle that,
there's another reaons why I've successfully avoided it for th
Hi,
I would like to throw my hat in the ring to try to clarify to
y'all what I believe the GR and amendments are doing, and which may
explain why the ballot is shaping up the way it is -- and that
involves the release tea decision that the GFDL is non-free.
I am currently recon
Hi
Do you know about an implementation of libkdtree
that works with MS visual C++ (6.0 or 7.*) ?
thanks
Jacob Bensabat, Ph.D.EWRE Ltd.PO Box
6770, Haifa 31067, IsraelTel: 972-4-838-3919Mobile:
972-54-441-7511Fax: 972-4-838-7621
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
>> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
> I've *never
Scripsit Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> If they are also compiled with a toolchain unchanged from Debian,
> the binaries can legitimately have the same Maintainer: field as in
> Debian, because they are essentially the same package.
> If not, the binary packages should have different Main
I wrote:
>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
>> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *that* in limbo is totally reasonable.
Christian Marillat wrote:
>I've *never* received an
Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
>>> Contrast rte, where the ftpmasters told Marillat exactly what he needed to
>>> remove to get the package in Debian, and he didn't do it, and declared that
>>> he would keep uploading it. Leaving *th
On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
> Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
Because there are parts of the packaging system where there is no way to
express such a dependency relationsh
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:32:06AM +0100, Thomas Hood wrote:
> I'll assume that python2.4-minimal Recommending: python2.4 won't be
> enough.
I'd imagine not.
> How about this? The current python2.4-minimal package contains
> /usr/bin/python2.4. We would move this to /usr/lib/python2.4/interpret
aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
>mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patented stuff was
excised, right?
Alternatively, I would be quite happy with t
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
>that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
>NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintainer field unchanged
Good point. If Ubuntu wishes to keep the Maintainer f
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:12:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You seem to require a standard of attribution in the Maintainer field
> >that Debian does not itself follow in our default procedures. To wit:
> >NMUs _within_ Debian keep the Maintain
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:22:53AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 10:38:08PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Ok, but now I'm confused: why is python-minimal needed in Essential?
> > Why not simply depend on it straightforwardly?
> Because there are parts of the packag
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
> scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
> bindings for debconf, and what ensures that they're installed?)
No, not yet. Th
Hello,
Loïc Minier wrote:
Rationale: you don't want to see konqueror launched as the default
browser in GNOME but you want GNOME to be integrated with Debian.
Ah, I remember that one as well.
It is simple to extend this scheme with:
- gnome-www-browser for browsers with GNOME support (e
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> on-going well being of a package". As I understand it, in Ubuntu, the MOTUs
> hav
* Andreas Schuldei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060119 13:15]:
> you are able to do init.d scripts, pre- and postinsts etc in
> python. That is a "ease of development" helper for ubuntu.
>
> how agressive does debian use it's perl in this regard? i think
> hardly at all.
Well, set a locale you did not (y
Thomas Hood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> /usr/lib/python2.4/interpreter. Packages that currently Depend on
> python but use only minimal functionality could Depend on python-minimal
> but they would have to run python using /usr/lib/python/interpreter.
> The stripped down python interpreter would
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:52:09AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:40:55AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I asked this question earlier, and no one answered. Are there .config
> > scripts being written in python today in Ubuntu? (Hmm, where are the python
> > bindings
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
* Peter Palfrader <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060120 13:31]:
> user implies noexec, nosuid, and nodev unless overridden by subsequent
> options according to the mount(8) manpage.
Please always keep in mind that this only reduces the chance, but still
keeps the possibility for holes open. (Like noexec cou
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
> >
> > a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
> >that we wanted in the base system (apt-listchanges comes to min
Kevin Mark wrote:
> Giving away code (GPL or otherwise) to the world is done for many
> reasons. Aparently some folks are more concerned about how their work
> is used. As with the attribution in .debs, folks want the users to not
> associate possible (as judged by them) 'bad'/'unofficial'/'off
>
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Ana Guerrero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: python-imdbpy
Version : 2.3
Upstream Author : Davide Alberani
* URL : http://imdbpy.sourceforge.net
* License : GPL
Description : Python package to access th
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 03:59:23PM +, Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst wrote on debian-devel@lists.debian.org:
> > [Re-adding Cc to Kurt, as he's mentioned he isn't subscribed]
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:20:26PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> > > Kurt Pfeifle wrote:
> > > > The kl
dread When I explained my altered position to you, sir, I began again,
pus uncomfortable state, and with a warm shooting all over me, as if my
marquis You are very much to blame, sir, said Mr. Spenlow, walking to and
involuntary saying that perhaps I should consult his feelings best by
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > the packages in universe are maintained only by the Debian maintainer, and
>
> The thing
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means "A
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> conversation.
I didn't add the CC to ubuntu-motu, nor the one to debian-project. I've
merely par
Matthew Palmer wrote:
The klik client installation needs root privileges once, to add 7 lines
like this one to /etc/fstab:
/tmp/app/1/image /tmp/app/1 cramfs,iso9660 user,noauto,ro,loop,exec 0
0
Doesn't this introduce a local root exploit? A user can easily write
their own /tmp/app/1/image f
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian, "Maintainer"
> > means "An individual or group of people primarily responsible for the
> > on-going w
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Package name: flash-plugin
Version : 7.0.61.1
Upstream Author : Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://members.chello.be/ws35943/flash-plugin/
* License : GPL
Description :
> > Please try "man mount". If your manpage is similar to mine, it will
> > contain something like:
> >
> > snip --
> > OPTIONS
> >user Allow an ordinary user to mount the file system. The name
> > of the mounting user is
Sam Morris wrote:
> If suidperl does not ensure that the scripts it interprets have the suid
> bit set, then shouldn't a critical bug be filed?
The nosuid mount option does not cause the suid bit to be unset, it
causes the kernel to not honor it when executing binaries. This doesn't
work for prog
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:08:38PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > > I keep hearing this, but I really don't believe it. In Debian,
> > > "Maintainer"
> > > means
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006, Sam Morris wrote:
> AFAIK Linux only supports eight loopback mounts at a time. This
> won't be a problem once FUSE becomes more widespread.
The default is 8; by seting the max_loop kernel option, you can
increase this to 256.
Don Armstrong
--
"You have many years to live--
On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
>> of that is still true.
> I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
> in main and does the same.
Two bads doesnt make one good, so we stay with
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:41:49PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 07:13:31AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > By way of example, the Debian maintainer is equipped to answer questions
> > > like "why is the
* Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> * Norbert Tretkowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-01-19 17:38:45]:
> > * Andreas Schuldei wrote:
> > > i remember a conversation where you pointed out some principal
> > > problems (security support, manpower) but in general were in
> > > favour of the idea and prefered fix
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 22:29 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10540 March 1977, Christian Marillat wrote:
>
> >> Right, you've got a list of reasons why it got rejected and half
> >> of that is still true.
> > I still don't see why rte can't enter in main, when ffmpeg is already
> > in main
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> outcome.
It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
--
- mdz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "u
Hi,
In buildd logs, I could find several
test.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'f'
warnings
This can be very problematic on 64bits architectures such as AMD64:
test.c:
#include
int main(void) {
printf("%p\n",f(-1));
return 0;
}
test2.c:
#include
void *f(long a) {
Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> Maybe the debian policy should require
> -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> issue?
Or buildds could check for "implicit declaration of function" warnings.
Regards,
Samuel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 01:40:11PM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 08:31:44AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> > All you'll get is the loud minority having a whinge then, no matter what the
> > outcome.
>
> It will certainly beat the hell out of continuing this thread.
It wil
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:19:58PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> > Maybe the debian policy should require
> > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to avoid such
> > issue?
>
> Or buildds could check for "implicit de
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In buildd logs, I could find several
> test.c:3: warning: implicit declaration of function 'f'
> warnings
> This can be very problematic on 64bits architectures such as AMD64:
Yes, and definitely maintainers should clean this up when they see it
unle
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 02:05:40PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 19, 2006 at 03:34:58PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > If we followed the same method for python-base, then we would
> > >
> > > a) instroduce python-base iff we had some package(s) written in python
>
Kurt Roeckx, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:56:22 +0100, a écrit :
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 11:19:58PM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> > Samuel Thibault, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:15:11 +0100, a écrit :
> > > Maybe the debian policy should require
> > > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration in CFLAGS so as to
Samuel Thibault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Kurt Roeckx, le Fri 20 Jan 2006 23:56:22 +0100, a écrit :
>> But this really is the maintainer of the package that should look
>> at this. I don't think it's up to the buildd's maintainers to
>> go and look for this type of bugs.
> Ok, but maintainer
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:54:40AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:35:55PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Arg, and to make matters worse, this discussion is CCed to a
> > closed-moderated-list, Matt, this is really not a friendly way to have a
> > conversation.
>
> I didn'
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 10:46:51AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 07:24:57PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 09:20:33AM -0800, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> > > In practice, it doesn't work out to mean the same thing, however. Most of
> > > the packages in u
On 20-Jan-06, 16:55 (CST), Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and definitely maintainers should clean this up when they see it
> unless they know it's safe. On the other hand, *most* of the cases of
> this warning in my experience are harmless because the function returns an
> int. I
Christopher Martin wrote:
> Therefore, no modification of the DFSG would be required after the passage
> of the amendment, since it would have been decided by the developers that
> there was no inconsistency.
If a simple majority can yell, "there is no inconsistency" then the 3:1
requirement ha
Joseph Smidt wrote:
> " I provide these files without any warranty. Use them at your own risk.
> If one of these packages eats your cat or your rabbit, kills your
> neighbour, or burns your fridge, don't bother me. "
Well, perhaps you should read the following, printed whenever you log in
to your
On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left and right in
> order to guarantee legality. Just check that the patent
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 11:45:26 -0500, Christopher Martin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So let's start again. Let's say that someone tried put forward a new
> amendment in place of the old. This amendment makes clear its
> intention to assert the position of the Debian Project as viewing
> the GFDL,
Joseph Smidt wrote:
> Were you writing this just to ridicule me?
No, not at all. It was just supposed to be a joke.
I appologize; I should have been clearer.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1/20/06, Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Joseph Smidt wrote:Well, perhaps you should read the following, printed whenever you log into your Debian machine:"Debian GNU/Linux comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, to the extentpermitted by applicable law."
Hey, "without any warranty" is
On Sat, Jan 21, 2006 at 06:06:36AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2006 at 12:08:39PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> > aj@azure.humbug.org.au wrote:
> > >mplayer has had an explicit warning from upstream that it's patented;
> > The proposed tarball for Debian has stuff excised left
Joseph Smidt wrote:> Were you writing this just to ridicule me?No, not at all. It was just supposed to be a joke.I appologize; I should have been clearer.
I'm sorry I lashed back. I know it was supposed to be a
joke. So I need to apoligize too. Humer is good,
laughter is the best medicine
* Anthony Towns [2006-01-21 06:06:36]:
> No, we have real problems with video codec stuff in Debian and they need
> to be resolved thoroughly, not expediently.
i was under the impression that the ftp-master team had started
to work on that several month ago, shortly before the last mention
of thi
81 matches
Mail list logo
