¢à ¿Ã´ÃÃà ï¸à ¢Ã
¡á°ú½Ã¿åA girl got an
engagement ring, and would seize every opportunity for
calling attention to it. In a
group with girl friends no one noticed it. Finally when herfriends
were sitting around talking, she got up suddenly and said, "It's awf
Moi!
In the process of packaging the sound editor glame, I noticed this
small issue: Glame (and other packages like xmms for example) makes use
of plugins that are dlopen()ed on demand at runtime. Those plugins are
compiled and linked as shared libs, but obviously, one does not want to
create a sh
Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> future in order to properly solve this issue.
Geez, again? Basically a .so files that is not in /lib, /usr/lib
* Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 11:18]:
> Previously Daniel Kobras wrote:
> > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring up
> > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > future in order to properly solve this issue.
>
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 02:13:41PM -0700, Seth Arnold wrote:
> > > For now I added a lintian overrides for this, but Sean asked me to bring
> > > up
> > > discussion here to clarify what lintian should treat as shared lib in the
> > > future in order to properly solve this issue.
> >
> > Geez, ag
On Thu, Apr 26, 2001 at 11:42:41PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > Wichert, I think "Geez, again?" is the incorrect response to Daniel's
> > mail. Bugs #42399 and #65345 against debian-policy have been outstanding
> > for 1 year and 268 days and 322 days. #65345 even has a patch against
> > lintian,
On Fri, Apr 27, 2001 at 12:52:10AM +0100, Julian Gilbey wrote:
> (2) We don't have any official editorial rights, so unless a proposal
> has been seconded in the standard way, it's difficult to figure
> out what to do with it.
Pester people on IRC to second ones that you think are good ide
* Josip Rodin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010426 14:54]:
> Our inability to get this into Policy is appaling, isn't it? :<
Especially since both you and Wichert have put effort into this -- that
is two possible seconds for a proposal. I've taken a closer look at the
policy-process text and I do not think
8 matches
Mail list logo
