On Friday 25 June 2004 10:43 am, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> This is a complete misnomer...
> It does this because kvim is part of the kdeaddons metapackage, and
> kdeaddons is part of the kde metapackage.
>
> Rest assured your KDE installation is safe.
Oh, I gotcha. I wasn't thinking that far ahead,
> However, the KDE modules doesn't change very quickly, and probably (it's just
> my opinion) the only change that will affect the kde metapackage after 3.3,
> will be changing quanta for kwebdev, and maybe adding kdebindings.
FWIW there is already a kdewebdev metapackage, so you can install th
El Viernes, 25 de Junio de 2004 22:40, Matías Costa escribió:
> > Yes, BUT, it will interfere with future upgrades that add new components
> > (this time that we might want) to KDE. If you do not have the
> > metapackage they will not get included automatically.
>
> Anything is perfect :(
>
> Well
> Yes, BUT, it will interfere with future upgrades that add new components
> (this time that we might want) to KDE. If you do not have the metapackage
> they will not get included automatically.
Anything is perfect :(
Well, debian news says what is new in the repository.
On Friday 25 June 2004 15:43, Gavin Hamill wrote:
> On Friday 25 June 2004 15:32, Silvan wrote:
> > ->apt-get remove kvim
> > Reading Package Lists... Done
> > Building Dependency Tree... Done
> > The following packages will be REMOVED:
> > kde kdeaddons kvim vimpart
> > 0 upgraded, 0 newly insta
On Friday 25 June 2004 15:32, Silvan wrote:
> ->apt-get remove kvim
> Reading Package Lists... Done
> Building Dependency Tree... Done
> The following packages will be REMOVED:
> kde kdeaddons kvim vimpart
> 0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 1 not upgraded.
> Need to get 0B of archi
On Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:32:25 -0400
Silvan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
S> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 11:27 am, Alexander Nordström wrote:
S> > On Wednesday, 23 Jun 2004 21:14, David Goodenough wrote:
S> > > It seems to be a pre-req for any KDE install, try to remove it
S> > > (at least under Debian)
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 11:27 am, Alexander Nordström wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 Jun 2004 21:14, David Goodenough wrote:
> > It seems to be a pre-req for any KDE install, try to remove it (at least
> > under Debian) and most of KDE seems to want to go away.
>
> It is not.
I wonder where the insan
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 07:57:09AM +1000, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> But I tell you what, here's a deal. You thank me for the immense number
> of hours that I have spent packaging KDE for you for free over the last
> few years, and I'll apologise for that CC.
>
> Ben.
Hey Ben, you didn't CC me, but
> Thank you! It really is much appreciated.
And my apologies for the unwarranted CC. :)
b.
On Friday, 25 Jun 2004 05:57, Ben Burton wrote:
> But I tell you what, here's a deal. You thank me for the immense number
> of hours that I have spent packaging KDE for you for free over the last
> few years, and I'll apologise for that CC.
Thank you! It really is much appreciated.
--
Alex Nord
> I naïvely thought that an invalid from-address and the fact that I do not ask
> to receive CCs would stop people from doing it accidentally or go through the
> effort to do it deliberately, especially considering what
> http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct tells you. Silly me.
O
On Thursday, 24 Jun 2004 13:16, Ben Burton wrote:
> Well if you're going to be that touchy about it then you might at least
> consider setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To. But then it's always
> more fun to complain than to try to prevent the problem, isn't it?
I naïvely thought that an inval
[ snipped 7 lines of anger ]
Well if you're going to be that touchy about it then you might at least
consider setting an appropriate Mail-Followup-To. But then it's always
more fun to complain than to try to prevent the problem, isn't it?
b.
Please do *not* CC people off-list unless they specifically request it. I am
obviously subscribed to the list, so there is absolutely no need for it.
Furthermore, I munge my address on the list so as to avoid it being stored in
the archives and getting picked up by spammers' address harvesters.
> As much as I like vi, I might have to agree with that. The inclusion of kvim
> and vimpart in popular meta packages could be questioned, at least if it is
> greedy about file associations.
FWIW, I have kvim and vimpart installed and they have never offered
themselves as defaults for anything.
On Thursday, 24 Jun 2004 00:52, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 June 2004 16:27, Alexander Nordström wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 23 Jun 2004 21:14, David Goodenough wrote:
> > > Why was KVim added as the default editor (at least when you
> > > open files with Konqueror) when we have so many
On Wednesday 23 June 2004 16:27, Alexander Nordström wrote:
> On Wednesday, 23 Jun 2004 21:14, David Goodenough wrote:
> > It seems to be a pre-req for any KDE install, try to remove it (at least
> > under Debian) and most of KDE seems to want to go away.
>
> It is not.
>
> # apt-get remove kvim
>
On Wednesday, 23 Jun 2004 21:14, David Goodenough wrote:
> It seems to be a pre-req for any KDE install, try to remove it (at least
> under Debian) and most of KDE seems to want to go away.
It is not.
# apt-get remove kvim
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
The followi
Much as I have tried, I can not come to terms with KVim. If I have a
plain text file I want KWrite or Kate.
I am a programmer, but have never used Vim, and at least I
recognise Vim and understand that it has its uses and that
many programmers live by it. But I have also had comments
from non
20 matches
Mail list logo
