"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> On 21.08.2010 08:36, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
>>> index 9ba66e5..2308d39 100644
>>> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
>>> +++ b/virtual-pa
On 21.08.2010 08:36, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
index 9ba66e5..2308d39 100644
--- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
+++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
@@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ News and M
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Russ Allbery wrote:
> diff --git a/virtual-package-names-list.txt b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> index 9ba66e5..2308d39 100644
> --- a/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> +++ b/virtual-package-names-list.txt
> @@ -123,6 +123,8 @@ News and Mail
> imap-server an IM
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Note: I was replying to your "out of curiosity".
> To answer the original question:
> I agree to make "mailx" a virtual package.
> And I agree to specify that the mailx provides the
> POSIX interfaces of mailx
Here's an updated patch.
diff --git a/virtual-packa
On 19.08.2010 09:45, Russ Allbery wrote:
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
On 18.08.2010 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau writes:
Is there a spec somewhere about the command line arguments for mailx?
I know that bsd-mailx and heirloom-mailx do completely different
things for -a, e.g
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> On 18.08.2010 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Julien Cristau writes:
>>> Is there a spec somewhere about the command line arguments for mailx?
>>> I know that bsd-mailx and heirloom-mailx do completely different
>>> things for -a, e.g., which is a major pain, and I
On 18.08.2010 23:38, Russ Allbery wrote:
Julien Cristau writes:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I propose the following addition. Seconds or objections? (As
mentioned elsewhere in the file, the * indicates that the providing
packages are using alternatives, whic
Julien Cristau writes:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I propose the following addition. Seconds or objections? (As
>> mentioned elsewhere in the file, the * indicates that the providing
>> packages are using alternatives, which appears to be the case.)
> Is th
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:31:59 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Russ Allbery writes:
> > Piotr Kaczuba writes:
>
> >> Before 1.2.65 logcheck depended on mailx, which was and still is
> >> provided by both mailutils and bsd-mailx. Now that logcheck depends
> >> explicitly on bsd-mailx, you can't h
Russ Allbery writes:
> Piotr Kaczuba writes:
>> Before 1.2.65 logcheck depended on mailx, which was and still is
>> provided by both mailutils and bsd-mailx. Now that logcheck depends
>> explicitly on bsd-mailx, you can't have installed both logcheck and
>> mailutils because mailutils and bsd-ma
10 matches
Mail list logo
