On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Ok. To make it fully clear, I hereby change my earlier proposal to
> this one:
>
> extra
>
> "This contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
> important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
> useful if you alr
Ok. To make it fully clear, I hereby change my earlier proposal to
this one:
extra
"This contains all packages that conflict with others with required,
important, standard or optional priorities, or are only likely to be
useful if you already know what they are or have specialised requirements."
On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 15:29:38 -0500, Bob Hilliard wrote:
> This reference should be deleted, or the URL updated.
>From http://www.faqs.org/faqs/unix-faq/shell/csh-whynot/ I gather the
canonical URL nowadays is
ftp://perl.com/pub/perl/versus/csh.whynot.gz
Ray
--
POPULATION EXPLOSI
On 09-Feb-99 Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Feb 09, Shaleh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Seems like a good idea. Maybe we can even get a Debian BSD someday (= The
> >BSD's could use a nice packager like dpkg.
> AFAIK the do not want to use it because it is GPLed.
They happily use gcc and friends (=
Package: debian-policy
Version: 2.5.0.0
Section 4.4 of the packaging manual refers to "Csh Programming
Considered Harmful", on rtfm.mit.edu, in
/pub/usenet-by-group/comp.unix.programmer. This file is not now in
that directory.
This reference should be deleted, or the URL updated.
Bob
5 matches
Mail list logo
