I'm a "newbie" and would like to have help installing Debian on win98
system. I have an AMD-6 300 with 5 Gig HD which I am now going to wipe
and leave 1 gig partitrion for Linux-Debian. I have 64 RAM. I hope to
get the latest Debian release- which supposedly is about to come out
soon- from a friend
Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally, I think csh-considered-harmful is a purely personal
> decision and has no place in policy and therefore lintian.
What does it say if you're using foosh?
Lintian should at least warn if the instalation scripts are using
anything not in base
On Tue, 26 Jan 1999, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:05:34PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> > None of the arguments for keep /usr/X11R6 apply to /usr/share.
>
> None of the arguments for keeping /usr/X11R6 apply at all ;-)
One does - backwards and sideways compatibility.
And that
On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 05:12:01PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > So, can I let these example scripts be executable, or not?
>
> Examples should go in /usr/doc/examples/ . Lintian will not
> complain about executables in that directory.
It still complains about csh-conside
On Sun, Jan 24, 1999 at 02:05:34PM +, Jules Bean wrote:
> None of the arguments for keep /usr/X11R6 apply to /usr/share.
None of the arguments for keeping /usr/X11R6 apply at all ;-)
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3TYD [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Latest Debian packages at
On Fri, Jan 15, 1999 at 10:06:28AM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> PS: Has somebody talked with the XEphem author to make it DFSG-free? What's
> wrong with us in natural sciences? Why are we so infected by this "noone
> will steal my work" metality? Why do we tend to write such stupid
>In short: I can't see and never could see that a daemon to do that offers
>me any protection over just having my crypt(3)ed passwords in /etc/passwd,
>and could in fact be detrimental (see below). People who use stupid
>passwords (names, birthdates, etc.) deserve what they get. If you need
>more
I believe the problems with pidof and daemons only arise when the daemon
does such funky things as changing argv[]. For example, sendmail - pidof
sendmail doesn't find anything, whereas killall does[1]. I suspect this is
correctable and possibly a bug in pidof, but this is the state of affairs
at
Raul Miller writes:
> Only works if you're guaranteed that there's only one running instance
> of the daemon.
I wrote:
> ???
>
> hasler/~ pidof xterm
> 30423 30422 30421 30420 30419
> hasler/~
Raul Miller writes:
> xterm is not a daemon
What's that got to do with it?
hasler/~ pidof nfsiod
7 6
Raul Miller writes:
> > Only works if you're guaranteed that there's only one running instance
> > of the daemon.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ???
>
> hasler/~ pidof xterm
> 30423 30422 30421 30420 30419
> hasler/~
xterm is not a daemon
> > I seem to recally either policy or the pac
Raul Miller writes:
> Only works if you're guaranteed that there's only one running instance
> of the daemon.
???
hasler/~ pidof xterm
30423 30422 30421 30420 30419
hasler/~
> I seem to recally either policy or the packaging manual recommending
> against using pidof for start/stop scripts.
Can
Bob Hilliard writes:
> > I am working on improving the startup file for a daemon that doesn't
> > handle its pid file properly and consistently. I am getting the pid by
> > piping the output of ps ax through grep and cut.
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why not use pidof ?
Only works if
Bob Hilliard writes:
> I am working on improving the startup file for a daemon that doesn't
> handle its pid file properly and consistently. I am getting the pid by
> piping the output of ps ax through grep and cut.
Why not use pidof ?
> I am thinking of the case of machines that are up for long
13 matches
Mail list logo
