wanna see teens models (18 )

2001-11-28 Thread
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Thursday, November 29, 2001 at 04:35:12 --- : no cc needed! Wanna See Hot modelsTeen http://amateurs.join4free.com/?wm=39883>Click Here

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Anthony Towns
On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 02:11:14AM -0800, Grant Bowman wrote: > It seems to me that a natural step would be to update the policy to > reflect the FHS 2.2 and add LSB 1.0. Is this already in progress? I'm not sure if there's any sort of "official" position on this, but mine is that the LSB isn't

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: >> >> Well no, packages in .lsb that have an /etc/init.d/initscript must >> support the 'status' option but Debian packages don't have to do >> that as they are Debian packa

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry: >> > If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move >> > all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen. >> > Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install >>

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
According to Sean 'Shaleh' Perry: > > If I'm not mistaken that is not nessecary unless we plan to move > > all .deb archives over to .lsb too, which is not going to happen. > > Debian will stay Debian we just need to make it possible to install > > .lsb files *as well* > > we can support the inst

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 28-Nov-2001 Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We >>would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts. >>Then there

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Miquel van Smoorenburg
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Have you read the lsb? Debian can not at this time claim to support it. We >would have to rewrite not only our init scripts but how we do init scripts. >Then there is the call for specific versions of glibc and a few

Re: LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 28-Nov-2001 Grant Bowman wrote: > Hello, > > I see the FHS 2.1 (2.2 is the latest http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is in > the Debian-policy 3.5.6.0. I see no mention of LSB in policy 3.5.6 > aside from one small footnote. There's only one bug filed with > debian-policy but it's about Mesa/G

LSB Status

2001-11-28 Thread Grant Bowman
Hello, I see the FHS 2.1 (2.2 is the latest http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) is in the Debian-policy 3.5.6.0. I see no mention of LSB in policy 3.5.6 aside from one small footnote. There's only one bug filed with debian-policy but it's about Mesa/GL libraries. It seems to me that a natural step