On Sunday 16 September 2001 09:15, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> > With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
>
> What an asshole you are I swear. I work my ass off to provide the proper
> and most stable/secure KDE environment for Debian and you start being a
> prick. Screw you! You shou
* Maximilian Reiss [Sunday 16 September 2001 07:39 ] :
> With now having kde starting MUCH slower. Great work.
Hey man what's your problem!
I hope that it was a typo. Otherwise you are definitely an
Jerk ! The Debian packaging for KDE is the best ever
you have no idea of what's involved and
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 10:15:45AM -0600, Ivan E. Moore II wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > > yes...that's a side ef
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:39:23PM +0200, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > >
> > > So does this mean package maintainer
Please, please, read the netiquette, and stop including the whole message
when replying. My mousewheel is almost broken because of this :)
To be on-topic : I didn't noticed any difference betweeen packages created
with and without objprelink. Hmm, it is maybe my computer's fault?
--
Putz Ákos
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 13:46 schrieb Stephan Jaensch:
> On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > > >
> > > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > > because it's causing policy
On Sunday 16 September 2001 13:39, Maximilian Reiss wrote:
> > > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> > >
> > > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > > because it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check
> > > slightly broader than polic
Am Sonntag, 16. September 2001 07:59 schrieb Ivan E. Moore II:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
> > > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
> >
> > So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink
> > because it's causing policy violations?
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 05:54:03PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> > yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
>
> So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
> it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slightly broader
> than policy and objprelink
> yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
So does this mean package maintainers should stop using objprelink because
it's causing policy violations? Or is the lintian check slightly broader
than policy and objprelink within the margin of error?
Ben.
yes...that's a side effect of using objprelink.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 04:17:12PM -0500, Ben Burton wrote:
>
> Hi.. I'm building packages using objprelink and getting lintian errors
> similar to the following:
>
> E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunluckytag.so.0.0.0
>
Hi.. I'm building packages using objprelink and getting lintian errors
similar to the following:
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunluckytag.so.0.0.0
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code usr/lib/libnoatunmadness.so.0.0.0
E: noatun-plugins: shlib-with-non-pic-code us
12 matches
Mail list logo
