On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 07:55:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> I'm in real trouble with apt-get and a squid proxy.
We've got the same problem when using apt via Squid via a broken
IBM proxy. (Apt connects to the Squid proxy, which has the proxies
of the German provider T-Online as its only and
On Sat, Jan 06, 2001 at 02:53:06PM +, Colin Watson wrote:
> "Scott Ellis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Of course the -I option to tar was completely non-standard. The
> >changelog explains why it changed, to be consistant with Solaris tar.
>
> I don't see the reasoning in the changelog, but
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 12:00:13AM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> I'm orphaning multi-gnome-terminal package now, because I
> don't use it at this point, and I have no enough time to
> maintain such package. presumably there might be the
> appropriate DD than me to maintain this package.
Is there an
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 03:34:50AM +0900, Akira TAGOH wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 30 May 2003 17:25:15 +0200,
> >>>>> "SR" == Sebastian Rittau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> SR> Is there anything that multi-gnome-terminal can do that the current
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:41:13PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Not exactly, there is a variable ENABLED which is set to 0 at installation.
> So
> the service will not start while variable is not set to 1.
So, just set the variable to 1 if upgrading from a version earlier than
that in which y
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 01:00:47PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> There seem to be someone believing that standard documents should be
> treated as software. Standards are not software. Standards do not
> improve if everyone is allowed to modify them and publish the modified
> version as an
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 04:17:50PM +0200, Julien LEMOINE wrote:
> Finally, since there is not really a policy about when to use debconf,
> I will respect the DFSG [1] and add a debconf warning [2] in the
> stunnel package.
[...]
> [1] "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software "
On Fri, Jul 04, 2003 at 02:04:51PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> But how far goes clause 4? Obviously not that far that Debian
> includes Java (for rather complete values of "Java", which seems to
> imply a certain proprietary implementation at the moment).
Which non-free Java implementations a
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:36:22PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> General
> Debian
> 1 project
>10 architectures
> 100 countries
> 1000 maintainers
> 1 packages
>10 bug fixed
> 100 million users
> 1000 installations
I would recommend to ex
On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 11:57:40AM +0200, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
> Il mar, 2003-07-08 alle 11:11, Sebastian Rittau ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 05:36:22PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > 100 million users
> > > 1000 installations
> >
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 12:14:52AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Bah, the Technical Committee takes months, sometimes over a year, to do
> something even as seemingly uncontroversial as voting in opposition to
> whichever solution Branden Robinson proposes.
So? This is more than enough time. T
On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 01:51:07PM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
> It seems then that our options are as follows.
>
> (i) Wait for the Qt maintainers to upload a fix.
> (ii) Do an NMU for Qt, despite the fact that this bug is not release-critical.
> (iii) Resort to the technical committee.
> (iv) Keep
On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 02:11:46PM +0100, Sergey V. Spiridonov wrote:
> Is Debian aims to be unicode compatible system?
Not officially, although I think that this is a worthwhile goal and
there are various efforts that try to bring Debian a little bit closer
to ubiquitous Unicode support.
> If y
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 10:24:05PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote:
> I'm trying to figure out the reason why orbit2 is blocked from testing,
I can only guess, but I think it is because of orbit2's conflict with
liblinc-dev. I would really like to see ORBit2 2.8 to go into testing,
since I plan to remove t
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 03:43:32PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> Redhat seems to be going to use a common look for their desktops (GNOME
> as well as KDE) in their new beta featuring a new icon set.
> Check out the screenshots at
> http://www.gnomedesktop.org/article.php?sid=616&mode=&order=0
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 09:06:20PM -0400, Elie Rosenblum wrote:
> The NMU was made before I was in any way contacted.
Would you please stop bitching, you're getting on my nerves. Except you
nearly nobody sees this as a problem. If you're not able to maintain
your packages properly and in a timely
On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 10:50:56PM -0400, Brandon L. Griffith wrote:
> Should I package each plugin seperately or make one large
> openverse-plugins.deb?
I would package them according to their size and external dependencies.
For example, I would package the plugin that requires dict separately,
On Sat, Dec 29, 2001 at 03:21:32PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> - for each ITP, we need at least 2 developers that will maintain the
> package, they both subscribe to the package, one is the official
> maintainer, the other is listed in the Uploaders: field.
This may work with larger packa
On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 08:56:10PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > But rootkits "are only likely to be useful if you already know what
> > they are or have specialised requirements".
>
> Ah, but useful to whom? It is clearly in the best interest of some of
> our users for a root
On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 12:05:45AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:54:40PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> > I don't know. Call me an optimist, but I seem to be hearing a rough
> > consensus.
>
> [...] And you, and another group of people, see to think that Debian
> should
On Sun, Apr 07, 2002 at 10:20:28PM -0500, Jeff Licquia wrote:
> Given that gcc, binutils, and KDE are in main, it would seem that the
> status quo and the DFSG are in conflict, or the status quo and someone's
> interpretation of the DFSG are in conflict at least.
As far as I can see neither the g
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 05:49:55PM -0400, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jeroen Dekkers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Isn't the goal of Debian
> > providing a free system so users don't have to run any non-free
> > software anymore?
>
> No, no, nonono, no, no, no.
Yes, of course. That's one of Debian
22 matches
Mail list logo
