[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? Can't it be runlevel 9? It (6)
> seems to be the standard in Linux boxen now, but why?
It's been standard in runlevel-based Unix for a long time. That's probably
because tradi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 26.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>"Christoph" == Christoph Lameter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Christoph> Emacs is one application. We want to use an existing
> Christoph> STANDARD not screw up one more. Emacs can be
> Christoph> adapted. Pleas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Clint Adams) wrote on 26.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Which installation method are you using in dselect? In think you have to
> > specify the directory "debian/dists/unstable" as base directory and select
> > distributions "main", "contrib", and "non-free".
>
> This would
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Jellinghaus) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On May 26, Kai Henningsen wrote
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Vadim Vygonets) wrote on 26.05.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > BTW, why does runlevel 6 mean reboot? C
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Koenig) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Scott K. Ellis wrote:
>
> >And if you don't read the documentation, especially the release
> >instructions, you get what you deserve.
>
> What part of the documentation are you referring to? I found nothing
> referring
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Jellinghaus) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> my 822-date says :
>
> local timezone differs from GMT by a non-minute interval
> local time: Tue May 27 19:22:48 1997
> GMT time: Tue May 27 17:23:08 1997
>
> how to correkt this (it's very ugly - debmake and dc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raul Miller) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> These packages should conflict with the versions of dpkg which
> have the problem. [Or maybe a predepends on a good version of
> dpkg?]
That won't help. Once you [U]pdate, the old dpkg will refuse to work. You
don't e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Frey) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> AltGr is a special modifier: it is a kind of Hyper key if you want
> (with Alt == Meta).
Ah yes, this brings up a point: *Don't* use Alt=(bit 0x80)! This won't
work for most people (anybody that needs more than ASCII).
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Welton) wrote on 28.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> While it would be nice if new developers took over some orphaned packages
> (I plan to), unloading a package on someone that they have no interest in,
> is, IMHO, a bad thing. If they are personally interested in it, th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) wrote on 25.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I just wrote something. First result: at this moment, master and ftp are
> identical, except for Incoming (of course), and except for the problem
I've since seen that ftp.debian.org obviously mirrors
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 29.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > I've since seen that ftp.debian.org obviously mirrors somewhere around
> > 19:40-20:50, local time for master, while the maintenance scripts run
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 27.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are ways to avoid this. For example, modify dpkg not to include any
> line with "config=yes" in it in the md5sum of certain files.
This is a troll, right?
Or maybe you have forgotten how conffiles are actually handle
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Christian Schwarz wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > whimper...)
> >
> > Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) Wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Craig Sanders) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The config database should be regarded as a convenience for
> {pre,post}{inst,rm} scripts and /etc/init.d/ boot time scripts only.
Well, that was what started the discussion, anyway. Then the general-admin-
tool stuff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 1 Jun 1997, Mark Eichin wrote:
>
> > > I believe libc5.so is LGPL...
> >
> > I don't. /usr/doc/libc5//copyright doesn't *mention* the LGPL *at
> > all*, though the libc6 one mentions both.
>
> Yep, the copyright f
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Where is the arch specification string used, i.e. what will break if we
> change it to be "i386-linux" on intel systems?
I'm not competent enough to answer this. Anything tightly integrated with
gcc, but is there
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Gunthorpe) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I really must admit I find the GPL very cryptic, it's hard to say exactly
> what it means if you look at very small detail. I do think that it makes
> sense however that you should be able to put RCS in a dll and link
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 02.06.97 in
<"sS5XS1.0.gy5.Mhgap"@debian>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > for SmallEiffel (which I am packaging) to work at all, it needs an
> > env-variable to be set.
>
> Is it not possible to patch the program, to default to the value that you
> were g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 04.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > That depends on how you look at it.
> > >
> > > If the author does not do significant maintenence or has abandoned the
> > > package then this is true.
> >
> > What if the author doesn't want you to do ports? We have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian White) wrote on 05.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I can understand Debian making policy that none of the core system will
> depend on such packages, but I don't see any advantage to simply disallowing
> such copyrights from the main distribution.
With respect to copyrig
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 01.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Yes, very limiting. The code actually cannot be linked statically!
>
> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
Can too. Read the law.
The GPL _cannot_ restrict someone from doing that, regardless of what the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 30 May 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 27.05.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > There are ways to avoid this. For example, m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Pick) wrote on 02.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I shouldn't have said 'dropping'. I don't think they are throwing any of
> the old code out. But they are switching to Java as the primary language
> which they are pushing. All of the NextStep API's will be 100% accessib
ftp.debian.org has caught up to most of the recent master changes, except
...
[...]
> d WebPages/.
> d WebPages/..
> -d WebPages/1.2
> -l WebPages/Bugs
> - ../debian.org-local/Bugs
> -d WebPages/CDs
> -l WebPages/Lists-Archives
[...]
... it doesn't mirror the WebPages directory. Is this i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 03.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I wound up in a catch-22 with some of the extra packages:
> - ghostview and gv both depend on gs. However, package gs-alladin which
> provides gs never gets installed because dselect tries to: gs-alladin is
> in non-free
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 07.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> >> Can't be linked dynamically either... read the GPL.
> >
> > Can too. Read the law.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Mortimer) wrote on 08.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 8, Kai Henningsen wrote
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 03.06.97 in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: [dselect fails to install main
> > > pack
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 08.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > it doesn't mirror the WebPages directory. Is this intentional?
>
> Yes, Sue and I decided that there was no need to have a copy of the
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 11.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The problems that need to be solved are:
> unpacking all the request scripts early enough to run them all before the
> first pre-inst;
> and making the request scripts able to diagnose what questions to ask,
> wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) wrote on 12.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I get quite a lot of these messages:
>
> inetd[153]: ident/tcp server failing (looping), service terminated
>
> How can I tell which service is the one that's asked for too often?
I'd say it's ident/tcp :-)
I guess y
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philippe Troin) wrote on 12.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm stuck with the diald package, and I've got problems with users
> from old versions. The thing is:
> the files /etc/diald/diald.ip-{up,down} weren't conffiles, and now
> they are.
> Installing a new version of diald
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Koch) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Quoting Philip Hands ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Qmail is most definitely capable of UUCP (I use it here), and AFAIK bang
> > paths can be done with rmail.
>
> With what addition? Last time I really tried it, it was only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Alexander Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Both qmail (which proved insecure ) and Exim are not
> > capable of UUCP or even bang paths! So a lot of those guys in countries
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christoph Lameter) wrote on 12.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It might be good if we would replace smail in hamm with exim. Exim should
> be the standard mailer for hamm:
>
> - Exim is based on the same concepts as smail.
> - It is developed with newer concepts in mind
> - Exi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 14.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 13, Sam Ockman wrote
> > Okay, so say some random person who has installed Debian wants XEmacs
> > 19.15 because he needs some feature. This seems like a reasonable
> > request... He could get it from the Ham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Tobias) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 13, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > Thanks Peter.
> >
> > I guess it's the ident service. So I try nowait.120 and see what
> > happens.
>
> Of course it is the ident service (that's what the error message of
> inetd sai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Templin) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The question is this: I've compiled a lean, mean kernel with the
> appropriate IP forwarding enabled (no firewalling or masquerading is being
> used). Will it "route" by default, or do I need to add a specific pac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Erv Walter) wrote on 13.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The locale errors are getting extremely annoying. What is the most
> correct way to solve the problems. unsetting LANG solves the problem,
> but I can't find where it is getting set in the first place. That's
> not the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lees) wrote on 09.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Well, it looks as we will have to agree to disagree.
> The file is not modified locally per s.e., just written locally in a
Uh, there's no dots in "per se". That's latin for by or in itself - per is
by, and se is self.
M
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) wrote on 15.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Exim doesn't provide UUCP capabilities *at all*, thus it is rather
> > useless for sites that use UUCP (like me).
>
> I expect that you will admit that UUCP sites are a minority. I use UUCP,
I don't know about him, b
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andreas Jellinghaus) wrote on 15.06.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> the dpkg replace function works only for the first package listed.
> one of my package (isdnutils) replaces more than one package (vbox,
> isdnlog, xisdnutils). maybe someone has an idea how i can make sure,
> th
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 15.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
> > perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
> > LC_ALL = (unset),
> > LANG = "us"
> > are supported and installed on your system.
> > perl: warning
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 15.06.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> My two personal reservations:
>
> 1) I think Daniel J. Bernstein (qmail's author) doesn't seem to know
> how to have a technical discussion without seeming as if he's tacking
> an implicit "you stupid idiot" on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miquel van Smoorenburg) wrote on 16.06.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [exim]
> >I also hope to figure out how to get exim to have a customer-configurable
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) wrote on 17.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> No! You cannot use libc5 compiled perl with glibc locales! Wait for a
> libc6 version of perl and everything should be fine again.
This is, of course, a problem nearly as serious as that about utmp.
MfG Kai
--
TO
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Cutts) wrote on 17.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 16 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > I meant the possibility for a customer to request the ISP exim to reject
> > any mail that comes from, say, savetrees.com. You know, what AOL does,
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tomislav Vujec) wrote on 17.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 15.06.97 in
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I got that (with perl only)
> > > before
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas L Stewart) wrote on 16.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Is there a dftp.conf setup I can use that doesn't require me to do some
> sed work on the packages file? The paths are wrong for the mirrors in the
> one that's on the servers now.
The paths in the Packages file c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas L Stewart) wrote on 17.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 17 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas L Stewart) wrote on 16.06.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Is there a dftp.conf setup
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ben Pfaff) wrote on 17.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) wrote on 17.06.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > No! You cannot use libc5 compiled perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 16.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am 16.06.97 schrieb efraim # argh.org ...
>
> Moin Alexander!
AK>> sendmail: too complicated
> That's wrong. It's very easy to configure sendmail with the m4 scripts for
> a leaf site. And professionell system adminstra
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The time is out of joint, o 'cursed spite.
>
> The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology will set it right
> on June 30, at one second before midnight UTC, by adding a leap second.
> Systems that run on POS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas L Stewart) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 18 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>
> > > ftpdir: /debian/hamm
> >
> > This is probably the problem. The above path is relative to the /debian
> >
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Templin) wrote on 18.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Let me try some somewhat off-topic questions here: I really think the ISP
> is clueless and not communicating the presence of our network to its
> upstream provider. Could a bunch of you developers please try the
> foll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goswin Brederlow) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> OK, it's unmounted then, but it should remount the drive if its
> untouched
> or ask if it should remount it. I'm not repartitioning the drive, but I
> had
> to change the types of the partitions, cause I can't do it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote on 20.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> What's the big deal? Why would you have to update everything? All
> you do is add an extra second to your system clock at the end of June
> and be done with it. Or you don't. Big deal.
That's when you use POSIX time
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> > Consider a system using "real" time. On June 31, its idea of time would be
> > wrong unt
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Someone wrote:
> > This is completely unacceptable. OS time must be predictable.
>
> Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
Consider it done. And now?
(Besides, isn't that a bug in cal? Not everyone switched in 1752. In fa
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Can someone explain to me exactly what POSIX time is? I was under the
It's just what you'd expect. Look at the calendar, get the timezone
difference (keeping in mind summertime laws), do the math, and get a
second counter. If a l
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Newbies should *not* be dumped into vi by default. It's just too
> user-hostile.
There's only one text mode editor that's not just as user-hostile, and
that's ae. That one seems to be completely unacceptable as a d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goswin Brederlow) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The script should eigther reboot after the disk holding root is
> partitioned or try to remount root r/w. Rebooting is a bit anoying when
> you only changed the type of another partition from DOS\0 to LNX\0,
> wherea
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goswin Brederlow) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bruce Perens wrote:
> >
> > If it thinks your CD is an audio disk, it would be an error in the "xaa"
> > file. The very first blocks on the CD tell what kind of CD it is.
> >
> > Bruce
> > --
> > Bruce Perens
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> But this requires a www server! Not a good idea for slow systems like my
> notebook. And the result doesn't look great.
Isn't there a mini www server in Perl's web modules, about one or two
screend of Perl? (I don't re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco Budde) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am 20.06.97 schrieb kai # khms.westfalen.de ...
>
> Moin Kai!
KH>> I completely fail to understand why a professional system administrator
KH>> would _want_ to use a MTA that's _that_ notorious for security holes. My
KH>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
> > Not everyone switched in 1752.
>
> This is Pope Gregory's calendar reform, isn't it? I think it goes back a
> century or more before 1752.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Francesco Tapparo) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jun 22, Kai Henningsen wrote
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Hudon) wrote on 21.06.97 in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > > Newbies should *not* be dumped into vi by
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Yukhimets) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> > example.
> >
>
> I am very sorry but I just don't think that debian-devel is a proper place
> to share the (mis)understanding of the loca
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) wrote on 22.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > Posix time includes leap-year-days, but does not include the finer
> > > resolution of leap-seconds. 21 leap-seconds (number 22 is coming up)
> > > have been added since New Years Day 1970 to keep clock time in sy
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Goerzen) wrote on 25.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> By the current definition of Important:
> * Sendmail should be there instead of smail since people expect
>sendmail
Nope. The sendmail interface should be there (fr example, /usr/lib/
sendmail), and it is provided
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Baker) wrote on 24.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you can saturate the modem with it it would be about two hours I think;
> that would be less than two UKP here, though I understand German phone
> charges are rather higher. However, the speed of some of the connections
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Browning) wrote on 23.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Ricardas Cepas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > As of current documentation, you can search only current
> > .html file. This is not very usefull.
> > Lynx ( on non-gzipped docs) is much slower then info
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 30.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Nov 30, 1997 at 02:07:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> ..
> > There are some valid arguments why showing violence is bad.
>
> No there ain't. There are some valid arguments why people who
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Damerell) wrote on 01.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On , 30 Nov 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> >Sorry. Quake or Doom are silly and stupid; they certainly aren't fun.
>
> Normally it's silly to assume your own experience is everyone else&#
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 01.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [You ([EMAIL PROTECTED])]
> >About two months ago, I upgraded a CPAN bundle on a production server.
> >Two interesting things happened:
> >
> >(1) perl itself got upgraded, and
> >(2) wais got upgraded.
>
> Huh??? Perl
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Petri Wessman) wrote on 02.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Mon, 01 Dec 1997 16:40:00 -0500, Brian White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> Brian> Morality is a touchy subject and (in my opinion) the _only_ place to
> Brian> draw this line is all or nothing.
>
> Agreed, except tha
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If I set a reply-to address for the list manually, then having
> it munged is not just being less pleasing, it is *broken*
> behaviour. Why should we break perfectly standard mail processing
> because some m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dermot John Bradley) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > ftp://gated.merit.edu/net-research/gated/gated-R3_5_5.inet.tar.gz
> >
> > (is that the right one ?) and found this in README.license
>
> THe current one is gated-3-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Manoj Srivastava) wrote on 04.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Personally, I still think that reply-to is a bad solution; we
That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
non-existant - I sure don't consider something that only works for a very
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tyson Dowd) wrote on 06.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Even the mail RFC (I forget the
> number) suggests using Reply-Tos for mailing lists.
You forgot because it's not true. No such thing in any of RFC 821/822/
1123.
MfG Kai
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark W. Eichin) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which easily leads (for me) to actually missing them - because of
> > duplicate suppression, they do not show up wh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Greenland) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On 07-Dec-1997 12:43:00, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's true. The problem, however, is that better solutions are next to
> > non-existant - I sure don't con
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Troup) wrote on 07.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[Deleted the part where you once again dodge the question _why_ ldconfig
is important]
> [dpkg does ordering on configuration and removal, not install]
Aah. Now _this_ is a good (and probably sufficient) point.
>From t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Troup) wrote on 09.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen) writes:
>
> [ Deleted the part where the doubters once again fail to bother to
> yprove that ldconfig isn't necessary (Hint: the onus isn't on me; I
> d
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christian Schwarz) wrote on 12.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> >
> > Format: 1.5
> > Date: Tue, 9 Dec 1997 00:21:58 +0100
> > Source: libtermreadkey-perl
> > Binary: libtermreadkey-perl
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adrian Bridgett) wrote on 27.11.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> There are alot of scripts which use unnecessary bashisms. Apart from complex
> scripts most of these can be easily changed to conform to the POSIX shell.
> This has the added advantage of meaning that those who want t
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Will Lowe) wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 1997, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> > BTW I'd be interested to hear any justification of why <--- == DEL
>
> Well, from a sheer visual standpoint, seeing an arrow pointing to the
> left, like on the BS key (<--),
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Guy Maor) wrote on 13.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Turbo Fredriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Sorry... I'm using perl, and these functions are not avalible.. *sigh*
>
> oh, yuck. You're just going to have to rewrite your routines to use
> the new structure. I'm su
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander E. Apke) wrote on 08.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think there is another reason for choosing <--- == BS, for
> internationalization. I believe it requires <--- == BS, though I am not
> entirely sure. This may be the reason for the push for <--- == BS, eve
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dale Scheetz) wrote on 13.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I need to connect a Linux box to an NT server over a dial-up line. The NT
> box uses a "Remote Access Server". I remember seeing a discussion of this
> recently, but can't find the reference in my mail archives. Can anyo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michel LESPINASSE) wrote on 14.12.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >My immediate problem is that I have the hardware clock set to GMT and
> >my system clock is never getting set to the local timezone.
>
> Do you see "/etc/localtime" when you type "date +%Z" ?
> If so, then I'd say
[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
[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] (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] (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] (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] (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] 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] (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] (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
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
