Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> reopen 32263
Bug#32263: [OLD PROPOSAL] Split /cgi-bin/ into system and local parts
Bug reopened, originator not changed.
> --
Stopping processing here.
Please contact me if you need assistance.
Darren Benham
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
reopen 32263
--
How about waiting just a bit longer? I was going to try to start this
again when (if?) the release happens. Numerous people have thought it
was a good idea, but there have been more important things on the plate.
Brian
On 22-Jun-00, 20:15 (CDT), "Carl R. Witty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In fact, I wouldn't mind revisiting the idea that the vi clones should
> > be ranked much lower. Anybody who want vi is going to type vi; somebody
> > who is so new to unix that
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In fact, I wouldn't mind revisiting the idea that the vi clones should
> be ranked much lower. Anybody who want vi is going to type vi; somebody
> who is so new to unix that they type "editor" probably ought to have
> something a little more friendly,
On 22-Jun-00, 17:54 (CDT), Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woo, thanks for the info. I tried to find something, but in that message
> pool it's difficult.
It wasn't on any of the debian-* lists, just cc'd among the editor
maintainers.
> That would be great, but I see a problem if we d
On Thu, Jun 22, 2000 at 01:17:59PM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote:
> > Here is my proposed priority list:
[...]
Woo, thanks for the info. I tried to find something, but in that message
pool it's difficult.
> Also, I'd raise nano to 45
*nods*
> I honestly don't think this needs to go into pol
Your message dated Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:54:52 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing these bug reports
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsi
Your message dated Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:54:52 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Closing these bug reports
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsi
On 21-Jun-00, 13:17 (CDT), Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brock Rozen suggested that init.d scripts should have explicit
> PATH=... settings. No-one commented on the idea.
As I recall, there was a lot of discussion...although maybe it occurred
in -devel before Brock formally proposed
On 22-Jun-00, 04:09 (CDT), Jordi Mallach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I see in /v/l/d/a/editor is the priorities are random now. In my
> system,
> /bin/ae 20
> /usr/bin/joe 70
> /usr/bin/nano 40 (I copied from Pico, IIRC)
> /usr/bin/vim 20
>
> And I don't think a priority of 70 conforms to a
On Wed, Jun 21, 2000 at 06:14:17PM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> I propose prepending text like the following to section 4.3.
>
> Shared libraries are .so files containing compiled
> code that are loaded by the ld.so(5) library.
That is ld.so(8) on my system.
> They mu
On Tue, Jun 20, 2000 at 01:38:10PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> > don't think it's in the current policy yet. Is there a policy for editor?
> > If there isn't, how should I decide my priority?
> I don't believe there is a policy, but glancing at /v/l/d/alt/editor and
> simple reasoning says that e
> > My guess is that debconf could be pressed into service, here. For woody,
> > it would be nice to have a whole category of optional questions related to
> > "do you want this exported or not". Share some initial leading question
> > or three, so that people can choose whether they want this l
13 matches
Mail list logo
