Previously Martin Schulze wrote:
> Section 5.2.2.1 of RFC2046[1] describes "Message Fragmentation and
> Reassembly". This technique may be used to deliver large files through
> the Internet without delivering them in one large mail. For example,
> sending a 3MB large picture could be splitted int
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
It's online now at ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/people/wichert/ . It has
all the magic that apt needs to download binary and source packages.
I also split the archive in two sections: one
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
It's online now at ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/people/wichert/ . It has
all the magic that apt needs to download binary and source packages.
I also split the archive in two sections: on
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
They should appear at ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/people/wichert/
somewhere in the next 30 hours.
Please note that I do expect everyone who uses them to subscribe
to the va-debian-users
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
They should appear at ftp://ftp.valinux.com/pub/people/wichert/
somewhere in the next 30 hours.
Please note that I do expect everyone who uses them to subscribe
to the va-debian-users
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
I pretty much have everything ready to go. There are two bugs I would like
to fix first:
1. update-devfsd in my devfs package isn't executable. I suspect the
debian/rules
script cop
Previously Russell Coker wrote:
> Wichert, how are plans for getting a public repository for these things going?
I pretty much have everything ready to go. There are two bugs I would like
to fix first:
1. update-devfsd in my devfs package isn't executable. I suspect the debian/rules
script cop
Previously Keith G. Murphy wrote:
> I must say, my subjective experience has been that rpm's are much faster
> to install something. Of course, it's also faster to throw my clothes
> on the floor, rather than put them in the hamper...
That is a result of the fact that rpm uses a binary database f
Previously Chip Salzenberg wrote:
> Actually, from what I've been told, rpm has at least one serious
> technical flaw: The order of execution for pre-install and
> post-install scripts is nonsensical for upgrades.
I wouldn't call it nonsensical, but the way dpkg does it is definitely
more robust.
Previously Chris Wagner wrote:
> RPM is a piece of crap compared to dpkg, and now we have apt (advanced
> package tool).
Can we please not be so negative about rpm? I'll agree that dpkg is
better (and of course I'm completely not biased here :), but rpm
is not a piece of crap.
Wichert.
--
___
10 matches
Mail list logo
