Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why? I think you see vi as I see gpm and they see mc: as an "essential
> convenience".
vi has the advantage of being backward compatible into the early '80s.
The only unix editors which vie with vi for standardness are ed (the
unix standard), and emacs (backwards
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I got to this a little late, but how about putting them in a
> subdirectory, like the mh commands are ? /usr/bin/dnsquery or some
> such.
>
> Then if you wanted these commands you could at it to your PATH.
That's overkill, and doesn't solve any problems.
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't ease of use more important than standardness when it comes to
> an editor to be used for a rescue situation? I think that I would try
> doing an alternative set of boot disks to see how folx liked them. Is
> it possible to make mc use vi? On the rescue disk, s
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe we should raise our demands to our developers: We should probably make
> clear *before* someone wants to become a developer that the job of a
> developer is not only care about the packages he/she maintains, but also the
> quality of the whole dis
Mark W. Eichin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What about the idea of running the x server directly from init,
> > and using xdmcp? Is that bogus?
>
> In fact, someone sent in reasonable-looking patches that do just that,
> not long before I stopped working on X; they should be in one of the X
> b
Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a compromise I could think of adding a paragraph to the description
> for pinepgp.
>
> .
> As we are not allowed to distribute a pine package you
> have to install pine-src and pine-diff in order to compile
> a pine packge out
Ian Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. Obviously additional development of the bug system would be good.
> This can be done either by the person doing 2., or independently.
> In any case the patches generated need to be sent upstream to me.
I'm interested in taking a look at this. I don't wan
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a poor design. xbase-configure would be more properly called
> xserver-configure, and in slink when I jigsaw the upstream sources
> differen tly there's going to be an xserver-common package where
> xserver-configure, XF86Setup, et al. will go.
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> everyone can use joe. it might be very frustrateing but it's possible.
We already have that with ae. Is Joe smaller than ae?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTE
Paul Slootman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you take a look at the bug report, you'll see that there's a
> workaround already in place for this bug, but the maintainer left the
> bug report intact because he wants to find a cleaner solution.
>
> Hence this discussion of lpr <-> lprng is pretty mu
Dan Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now, don't get me wrong...I hate windows registries just as badly as
> anyone else, and I've been using linuxconf on and off for ages. But
> this has one darn good idea to it: many programs using the same data
> source. For instance, I just installed th
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "DEBIAN: Sorry, you need a ph.d. in computer science, 10-year-experience
> in unix system administration or a good handbook on the obscure "vi" program
> before you can edit a file during installation process.
> Don't even think of installing it."
Er..
Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hm, be careful with 2.0.34...
Sounds like it should go in extra, for now.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Sailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, but I need to support netscape mail under Lose95...
There's a command line version of ssh that runs under win32
(I've used it under NT, I never run '95), that will do
port redirects (which would allow you to tunnel the pop
port).
--
Raul
--
To UNSU
Tim Sailer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, and it's an ugly method, and costs $99/seat. Netscape has
> native support for SSL. I'm trying to avoid clear passwords
> across the network. Eudora and qpopper support apop, but netscape
> doesn't... sheesh..
Well, there's the whole mozilla thing you c
I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
apt into hamm.
[Yeah, it's new software -- it's also the best way to keep the hamm
upgrade fro
On Sat, 13 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> > I noticed that apt is not yet in hamm. In my opinion, this is the
> > currently the single most important issue for hamm: unless we have
> > a real good reason, we should be focussing our efforts around putting
> > apt int
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a number of aspects of the existing init script that are not
> policy-compliant. Within this mail is a modified version that is. (Yes, I
> have tested it.)
A question/comment, though:
> TIMEHOST1=ntp2.usno.navy.mil
> TIMEHOST2=tick.usno.na
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Absolute novices unwilling to learn should be lead gently to
> the nearest windows box.
How about something like:
introductory vi help (unmap '?' to restore reverse searching)
This editor has two modes, in Input mode you may enter text,
in Com
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most features? *VI*? or you mean XEmacs? Since when has vi
> been an editor with features? ;-)
The biggest advantage of vi over xemacs is that vi is easier on the
wrists. For example, vi's . command (repeat last command which changed
the text) i
Z-Y [Jerry] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am no guru. But let's stop this war!
I apologize for everything I said which seemed combative.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you actually tried this and found something different?
I've run ntpdate numerous times with xntp already running.
> I've actually had several folks request that I break ntpdate out into a
> separate package, so that they could install just it and co
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe the text you wrote could be displayed when vi is started (like emacs
> has some text at start-up) ?
Remember that we're talking theory here, even elvis-tiny is
currently bigger than ae, and space is cramped on the rescue
disk.
That said, I was
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't background ntpdate, both ntpdate and xntpd can not run at the
> same time, if you load one then the other will fail.
Hm... then I guess it should be done the other way around.
ntpdate will run with xntpd running, I've done this numerous times
Sudhakar Chandrasekharan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Things seemed to be going fine till today. Today I noticed that apt-get,
> dpkg and dselect all dump core -
Sounds like a significant bug.
Please file a bug report. I think you should include with it an strace
(-f) of dpkg failing.
[Note: dp
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was the system clock ever warped more than 1024 seconds under these
> circumstances? If so, I think that it would cause xntpd to exit, but I
> have not actually tried it.
Hmm... circumstancial evidence says that yes, this kills xntpd.
I guess the right t
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never had ntpdate ever work while xntpd is running, with the set
> options it never actually changes the time, I forget if it's a silent
> fail or if it gives some error.
Hmm.. and the system where I was running ntpdate in the background
(after I t
Michael Dietrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> do you really think an absolute novice would understand why he or she
> should press j or k and not those fancy key with the arrows with the
> correct direction instead and that those key should won't insert those
> letters printed on them into the text
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree tottally. Personally..my favoprite editor right now is ee. I use it
I suppose ee is also a candidate for the rescue disks if it fits (it
offers searching, which is something that ae doesn't do, and it's
smaller than elvis-tiny).
Also, note th
Jeff Sheinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is that `ae' is what's available. I just go bananas
> trying to use it. It just rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps others
> react to ae in a similar way?
Yes, but note that the current version of ae fixes a lot of these
problems. [I found thi
Steve Dunham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you have 1GB or so free and you have root access, you can install
> Debian in a chrooted environment.
And if you don't want to install just about every debian package
you can get by with a lot less than 1GB.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've never had ntpdate ever work while xntpd is running, with the set
> > options it never actually changes the time, I forget if it's a silent
> > fail or if it gives some error.
Harumph.
Personally, I've never seen ntpdate hang, I've only deferred
Is there anything like a cannonical list of packages that are needed for
building a standard debian system?
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you may flame me, but you have to write the flame with joe.
Ok, I'm writing my response in joe. [Is it a flame? I hope not.]
ae is about 24k, 12k when compressed with gzexe, joe is about 174k,
82k when compressed with gzexe.
For this you get a n
Joop Stakenborg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I cannot use any other mail protocol, neither can I use ssh because
> of the firewall here.
Er.. is it an application firewall (which insists on reading your
mail, at least to ensure that you're using proper pop commands),
or is it just a packet filter
Scott Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We're increasingly of the opinion recently that any postinst questions are
> to be avoided.
But we still need the functionality.
The proper thing to do is provide an abstraction layer: both implementation
and access policy, which allows us to change the un
Dermot John Bradley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I thought that a non-maintainer release was normally only done where
> either a security hole needed to be fixed quickly or where a serious
> problem existed with a package that the maintainer had not fixed for some
> time.
The previous version was
Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> some people don't use dpkg, don't use debian, and still will burn a cdrom for
> a friend. a tar.gz is much better ...
Or a brief note that says use "ar x blah...deb" to extract the tar.gz file.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTEC
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How is it a ``poor'' solution?
Epochs solve the problem where version prefix b < version prefix a
but where b should follow a.
The current problem can be solved by a version suffix and therefore
does not require an epoch.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Tue, Jun 23, 1998 at 09:52:05AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > If people weren't being childish about the addition of 2 characters to the
> > changelog, which the users generally never see, we wouldn't be having this
> > discussion.
If we could keep this discussion to its technical merits, we
"Yann" == Yann Dirson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yann> Needed: Some technical info about why people consider epochs as bad.
> Yann> It seems most arguments only used aesthetic reasons. Please someone
> Yann> correct me if I'm wrong.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You'd
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eh? Almost any version-number problem can be solved by a version
> suffix[1].
Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Not where 1.0 follows 3.14, for example.
James Troup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You clearly can, as I demonstrated in my footnote.
No. If your footnote was applicable at all, it was not providing a
suffix to the current version n
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using epochs is adding things "to the left", while using prefixes is
> adding things "to the right".
Most of your message was accurate, but I have a minor technical nit here:
prefixes, including epochs, are both "to the left".
suffixes are "to the right
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> warping them (I can just see Ted T'so saying what the $#^%$ is 2.0.7
> *r*? Debian is doing its won thing again); and using epochs, a
It could be 2.0.7released
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe
Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When properly used epochs do not hang around forever. Consider the
> situation where epochs are supposed to be used:
>
> Upstream Debian
>
> 1.0 1.0
> 2.0 2.0
> 3.0 3.0
> 2.01:2.
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I mostly agree, but the argument that anything to the right of the
> dash should only reflect *Debian* related revisions does hold some
> water.
The question is: is it being used to bail out a maintainer who didn't
take other steps to deal with the version
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with rsync at the moment is that if the transfer is
> interrupted, it throws away the partial image --- Andrew Tridgell said
> he'd fix this though.
...
> If you use wget, and find that the md5sum that results is wrong, you
> should be able to f
David Lawyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm the author of the BitFontEdit "package" which I wrote 10 years ago.
> Only the original version with no name (directory is TermFonts) is still
> on the net in a few obscure locations. I want to get the improved
> version back on the net (my free webs
Gregory S. Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It might not be legal for someone to give him PGP or explain how
> crypto works even while he's in the US.
No, the regulations prohibit export. If he's in the US, that's not
export.
As you mention, even if it was a problem, it would be a problem for
Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now that sounds like a better idea if it would work, but just like
> the "touching idea", you'd have to make sure that all the relevant
> programs actually keep the file open, and don't just open it when they
> need it.
I think we can safely say that a pro
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 I
> think we've been moving in the wr
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Emacs should not be part of the 'basics' (I say this as an emacs user).
I think we should have a priority between "Standard" and "Optional",
perhaps named "Recommended". These are packages which would be
"Standard", but for size. Tex and a lot of X
> > On a related note, do we want to continue using names from pixar movies
> > now that Bruce is gone?
Justin Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i see no reason not to. they are nice names, the only problem is that we
> may be running out of good ones (i admit, rc was a stretch)
Is this suppos
Paul Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ever since hamm, expect has been giving me serious trouble. It won't
> run cleanly when started from cron. This means that a lot of my
> expects scripts are broken. I use expect extensively for system
> maintanance and accounting (make sure servers run, upl
Contrib and Non-free packages can't have release critical bugs --
they're not even an official part of debian.
--
Raul
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hate replying to myself, but here we go..
> kdelibs is LGPL. As someone mentioned it does use some code derived
> from gettext (libintl.cpp), which is GPL. However the code was taken
> from a version modified for glibc2 where is was redistributed as L
Chris Waters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is the really sad part about this whole mess. Qt is a nice
> library. Non-free, but not everything has to be free. But because of
> the refusal of the KDE developers to FIX THE KDE LICENSE PROBLEMS, a
> lot of people are being turned off of Qt! Qt does
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because Mathias has more or less forked klyx off the orignial lyx
> project and the remaining people probably aren't going to complain too
> much. It's not impossible for them to pretty much take a vote on it
> and opt to do the right thing. They may not,
Geoffrey L. Brimhall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I find this interesting because there is quite a bit of various
> efforts to port GPL'd code and programs to the MS Windows
> environments. Legally, this would imply stepping very carefully
> because who knows what proprietary libraries might be lin
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no, the modifications to the source are fine. the GPL does not in any
> way restrict the kinds of modifications you can make to GPL-ed source
> code. You have the source, you can do what you want with it. This is
> one of the freedoms guarranteed to you by
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to increase communication betweenm the ports and between porters and
> non-porters, I'd propose a new list:
Much more important than a new list would be an archive reflecting
porting experiences and techniques developed during porting.
I'd be in favo
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The GPL has a "feature" that with the exception of essential system type
> libraries (which is IMO far too vague to be terribly useful) any work
> derived from the GPL must also be under the terms of the GPL.
That's not really what it says, which is proba
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> note that there is also an exemption for libraries which normally come
> with the operating system - and libc definitely qualifies there...
Nope.
Some of the time, libc would qualify for that special excemption.
But it doesn't qualify for anything shippe
Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > KDE requires Qt currently. So KDE is non free.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> _No_. This does not necessarily follow, even if both statements may
> both be true. KDE simply depends on something that is non-free.
Except that KDE programs hav
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> there is no combined work until the source is compiled, linked to the
> non-free library, and a binary produced.
Please show me where the GPL says this.
I'm tired of pointing out this is false, quoting from the GPL to show
you were it says different, and
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Alan Cox wrote:
> > And SuSE and Red Hat and all of them put together are not worth a US lawsuit
> > yet. Price yourself a US lawsuit then judge again.
> >
> > Make them 5 times bigger and yes then its worth it.
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wrong! If you are not
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Programs linked to GPL'd library must be GPL, because by using the
> GPL'd library you have to comply to the license terms of this library.
> The main point is that USING a GPL'd library for a program is only
> allowed if the resulting program becomes GPL'
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I told him I would remove the first sentence but other than that it looks
> okay to me.
Yeah.
With that first sentence in, I think he'd argue that he doesn't need
anyone's permission to apply it to third-party GPLed software: he's
declaring what the GPL
Craig Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> similarly, i am tired of pointing out the errors in your misinterpretation
> of the GPL.
Er... could you at least back up your assertions with quotes from the
GPL which support your position?
Thanks,
--
Raul
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by linking
> it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I include it
> (the source code) in a book as a programming example, and I GPL the
> whole book.
>
> Will people be allowe
Philip Hands <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Let's say I write a Qt program (and confirm that it works by
> > > linking it against Qt in the privacy of my own home) and then I
> > > include it (the source code) in a book as a programming example,
> > > and I GPL the whole book.
Philip Ha
Matthew Parry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As Linux becomes more popular the hardware manufacturers will start
> giving away drivers with the hardware, as they do for WIN95/NT/Mac. If
> we give them the option to release the drivers as closed source then
> most of them will. But if we force them to
Anthony Towns wrote:
> Bleh. Can we /please/ move this to -devel?
Done.
On Mon, Jan 18, 1999 at 12:00:17AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > Also, in our social contract we say that packages in contrib are
> > not a part of Debian, but then we go ahead and create official links
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, MHO is:
>
> 1) Ban suggestions from main to non-free or contrib
> 2) Implement enhances for the last set of examples
> 3) Ditch the rest (well, the rest above).
>
> Lots of people aren't going to agree with me on this one...
Personally, I'd say impleme
Allan M. Wind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There should be _no_ (known) problems when shipped in stable (IMHO).
> Your favorite newbie has problems enough configurating ppp... dealing
> with ppp problems on top of that is not going to be well perceived.
Er.. wrong.
We're not waiting for all bugs
[I've looked over the other messages in this thread, but this looks like
the best message for me to respond to.]
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The question is: What needs to be policy?
>
> Specifically, Manoj's point of view seems to be that as we develop
> programs that tie the system to
Avery Pennarun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because it's such a widespread problem, we can assume that Debian 2.2's
> version of APT will support package renaming in some way. That means we can
> actually put off solving this problem until Debian 2.2, and even longer if
> the X fonts don't change.
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only thing resilient to compromised servers are cryptographically
> signed cryptographic checksums. Which requires PGP. Which is not
> exportable. And which requires a "chain of trust" to evaluate
> whether to trust the key used to sign the checksum.
Jonathan P Tomer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why not just have dummy packages delete themselves in postinst, if we're
> going to use them?
That can be done.. but it's not quite so simple (dpkg isn't re-entrant
unless the nested invocations are read-only). I suppose the trivial
implementation wou
thomas lakofski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I also am disappointed with the attitude of some people towards making
> these things easier to do. Is it some kind of techno-snobbery, maybe?
In the context of initial installation, I think it's laziness -- a
refusal to examine problems.
That said,
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But you're biting your own tail here. Where do you get that "good"
> checksum?
Any place which is acceptable to the package maintainer -- perhaps out
of a pgp signed archive.
If the package maintainer can't produce a trustable package, it
doesn't matter ho
Bear Giles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem isn't in *producing* a package, it's in *acquiring* that
> package later. What happens if someone successfully attacks a site
> immediately before you mirror it?
What happens if someone replaces a PGP signature?
Answer: people notice.
[Conside
On Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:44:06PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> > We shouldn't license our logo by any license that does not comply
> > with the DFSG. To do so would be hypocritical.
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not true. It's the Debian Free SOFTWARE Guidelines.
You're trying to ma
David Welton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you are indeed serious... technically, you are right, of course,
> but I think people are really going to think we are just a bunch of
> grumpy party-poopers if we seriously start to get anal about obviously
> silly licenses like this..:->
Perhaps we ne
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 08:36:58PM +0100, Vincent Renardias wrote:
> > I'm indeed not quite sure 'catware' qualifies as DFSG-free.
For what it's worth, I don't think we have any policy forbidding
the use of humor in non-free.
--
Raul
James A. Treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope that you are not trying to argue that there is no difference
> between a program and a logo. This is clearly ridiculous.
That's not my point. However, the definition of "software" is broad
enough to cover both, and the use of that particular wor
Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depends on the cat :-)
Indeed.
Now all we need is a way of petting /bin/cat, and we can automate payment.
--
Raul
Darren Benham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This document is free software; you may redistribute it verbatim in
> any format. You may modify this document and redistribute it in any
> form so long as you change the title of this document. You may use
> parts of this document for
Jules Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whilst I have no objections to such a change in rules, I am baffled that
> anyone could prefer xpaint to gimp, even for drawing straight lines and
> ellipses.
gimp won't run on smaller machines.
Also, there's Rick Hohensee's caligraphic patch for (if I reca
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the current state of things, a Debian system which is upgraded by
> dselect from hamm to slink, from slink to potato, from potato to potato+1,
> and from potato+1 to potato+2 may have, say, X version 5.5, and xfonts
> version 3.3.2.3-2.
>
> Do you th
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> a) If you DO NEED a > 128 MB swap file you are in serious trouble.
Not if you have 2G ram.
--
Raul
Remco van de Meent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because I, like every other user should do, read the documentation, and thus
> read you need util-linux 2.9g. And if it works for you with lower versions,
> does it always work? Yes, maybe, no, maybe not. I don't even want to take
> the risk of 'yes i
Ben Gertzfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe the GIMP contests specify that you need to use GIMP for
> creating the image. But you're right, there's really no way to check
> that.
Also, there's a -- perhaps subtle -- difference using GIMP exclusively
and using it as but one of a variety o
On Fri, Jan 29, 1999 at 09:51:51AM -0800, Darren Benham wrote:
> > To make it official, I'd request atleast one link somewhere
> > appropriate for his set up to the (even if it is broken) license.
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, after looking at the site, this guy is doing great thi
Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is quite different. David said he wanted MAJOR packages included
> in the updates (e.g. X). You said you agreed, yet you talked of _only_
> minor apps being upgraded.
It's probably a good idea to make post-freeze major packages available,
but not
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:21:28AM -0700, Andrew Fear wrote:
> Just looking for someone to talk to about getting 3dfx on the Debian
> releases going forward. Thanks.
The ideal person would be Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Thanks,
--
Raul
> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
> > As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
> standard, one cannot count th
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:51:47AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
(B> You mean having to dive into almost every perl script (not Linux
(B> developed) and change #!/usr/local/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl,
(B
(BUm.. you're just not lazy enough...
(B
(B# cd /usr/local/bin
(B# ln -s /usr/bin/perl
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:36:47PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
(B> Klee had an interesting idea on this, that makes more sense I think. If
(B> you look at all the different kinds of programs that are being packages
(B> you notice that a lot of them fall into quite well-defined categories
(B>
401 - 500 of 513 matches
Mail list logo
