On Fri, Oct 05, 2001 at 05:13:09PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> One doesn't even have to muck with *roff anymore nowadays, since we
> have packages like docbook2man, docbook-to-man, and docbk-xml2x,
> right? I don't know which of those is better, though.
*roff's horriblness has been overstate
"Albert D. Cahalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If you don't think it looks
> real pretty, you can offer a CORRECT replacement. That is, you have
> to do some pretty foul *roff stuff to avoid getting line breaks and
> hyphens when they don't belong.
One do
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:49:54AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
> > You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
> > knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
>
> WTFisyour problem with it?
>
> I wrote docume
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 12:52:57AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
> time writing abusive flame mails that you do, you would in fact be
> half the asshole you pretend to be.
Damn, I'm only pretending?
> Besides that might ac
> > You reap what you sow, buddy. If it weren't for people like you
> > providing such a magnificent example, I wouldn't be half the asshole
> > I am today.
>
> I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
> time writing abusive flame mails that you do, you would in fact
"Branden Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You reap what you sow, buddy. If it weren't for people like you
> providing such a magnificent example, I wouldn't be half the asshole
> I am today.
I don't suppose that anyone has pointed out that if you spent half the
time writing abusive flame
Shouldn't this be cross posted to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-raf
On Thu, Oct 04, 2001 at 01:12:10AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Branden Robinson writes:
First of all, what parts of:
Mail-Followup-To: debian-powerpc@lists.debian.org
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
are too difficult to comprehend?
> I su
Branden Robinson writes:
> Whine, whine, whine, piss and moan.
>
> 1) Debian *has* rewritten your abysmal manpage -- quite some ago, in
>fact.
> 2) If you want Linux's man to format things differently, submit a patch.
I suspect that others have seen more than enough of this
stupid flamewar w
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 03:49:54AM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> WTFisyour problem with it?
>
> I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If
> you don't think it looks real pretty,
> you can offer a CORRECT replacement.
> That is, you ha
Branden Robinson writes:
> You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
> knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
WTFisyour problem with it?
I wrote documentation. Be glad I did. If
you don't think it looks real pretty,
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
>
> chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
otherwise known as the Apple MacOSX User Friendly Security Policy.
--
Ethan Benson
http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
pgphXoGQukY6w.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 05:36:33PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
>
> Then the correct test would be to create another user and run the app as
> that user and see it it works.
or simply rm -rf ~/.mozilla ~/.galeon
galeon comes with a script that does that for you and instructs you do
run it on upgrade
In debian.powerpc, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps manpage
>knows he is a troll, utterly beyond redemption.
Fair comment... but having said that, there still needs to be a
correction about this stuff in the archives, for the sake of any
newbies
On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 12:17:36PM +1000, Stuart Lamble wrote:
> *pulls out his clue-by-four*
>
> *WHAM!*
>
> DON'T *WHAM!* DO *WHAM!* THAT!! *WHAM WHAM WHAM WHAM!*
>
> You have *no* idea of the meaning of the word "security". Idjit.
You guys are total fools. Anybody who has read Albert's ps m
In debian.powerpc, a clueless git wrote:
[...]
>There is an admin command (thus OK to run as root) that will
>solve this sort of problem:
>
>chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
>
>Then just log in as a regular user.
*pulls out his clue-by-four*
*WHAM!*
DON'T *WHAM!* DO *WHAM!* THAT!! *WHAM WH
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> Mike Fedyk writes:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>
> >> running things as root should never even be on your list of things to
> >> try when something is broken. this isn't Windows NT.
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:21:56PM -0400, Albert D. Cahalan wrote:
> There is an admin command (thus OK to run as root) that will
> solve this sort of problem:
>
> chmod -R root.root / ; chmod -R 6777 /
>
> Then just log in as a regular user.
/me watches the poor stupid bastards eat the gun
--
Mike Fedyk writes:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
>> running things as root should never even be on your list of things to
>> try when something is broken. this isn't Windows NT.
>
> I agree with Ethan here.
>
> The most you should do is run the program as the use
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:49:06PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> > > > error was.
> > >
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 04:35:46PM -0700, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> > > error was.
> >
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> >
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > So, I didn't intend to use it as a web browser, merely to test what my
> > error was.
>
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 03:04:42PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> running things as root should never even be on your list of things to
> t
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 09:50:26AM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > no X program should ever be run as root. period.
>
> I disagree.
well your wrong then.
> When I first tried the new build of galeon, I mistakenly ran one of my
> old builds, and reported success. When I realized the error, a
"Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> > >
> > > you should not even be trying that, ever.
> >
> >
On Tue, Oct 02, 2001 at 07:52:37AM -0400, John Hughes wrote:
> Don't know if it was covered before.but I have had problems with Mozilla
> installs because of ownership of files. Try:
>
> chown -R root.root
>
>
> For some reason, if it still has the original, and on most systems unknown,
>
Don't know if it was covered before.but I have had problems with Mozilla
installs because of ownership of files. Try:
chown -R root.root
For some reason, if it still has the original, and on most systems unknown,
user and group from build time. It seg faults. Once it is chowned, it should
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> >
> > you should not even be trying that, ever.
>
> Advice is good, reasons are even better. Why shouldn't I ru
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:06:48PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> Instead of taking the 5 seconds it takes to make a pointless cryptic
> reply, why not take the 30 seconds to include a URL, or slightly more
> verbose one?
>
> Otherwise, why bother?
Instead of taking the 30 seconds it takes to
"Jeffrey W. Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > > "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> > > > y
On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> > "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> > > you should not even be trying that, ever.
> > Advice is good,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 07:36:50PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> "Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
> >
> > you should not even be trying that, ever.
>
> Advice is good, reasons are even better. Why shouldn't I ru
"Ethan Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Ok. I lied, galeon only works for root. If I try to run it as a
>
> you should not even be trying that, ever.
Advice is good, reasons are even better. Why shouldn't I run it as root?
> > non-priveleged user I get an error dialog:
> >
> > Cannot
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:53:44PM -0600, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> "Michel Dänzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 23:33, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> >
> > > I went to upgrade to the mozilla-browser in unstable, and I get a
> > > segfault on line 24 during the dpkg configur
"Michel Dänzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 23:33, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
>
> > I went to upgrade to the mozilla-browser in unstable, and I get a
> > segfault on line 24 during the dpkg configuration that line is just:
>
> Downgrade libc6 to 2.2.4-1 . BTW no more need to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason E. Stewart) writes:
> Yup, that did it. I had to 'apt-get remove locales' as well, as it
> required glibc2.2 ...??
Just get the locales package which matches the version of libc6. All
of this should be in:
http://http.us.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/>
"Michel Dänzer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 23:33, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
>
> > I went to upgrade to the mozilla-browser in unstable, and I get a
> > segfault on line 24 during the dpkg configuration that line is just:
>
> Downgrade libc6 to 2.2.4-1 . BTW no more need to
On Mon, 2001-10-01 at 23:33, Jason E. Stewart wrote:
> I went to upgrade to the mozilla-browser in unstable, and I get a
> segfault on line 24 during the dpkg configuration that line is just:
Downgrade libc6 to 2.2.4-1 . BTW no more need to submit a bug about
this. ;)
--
Earthling Michel Dänze
Hey All,
I went to upgrade to the mozilla-browser in unstable, and I get a
segfault on line 24 during the dpkg configuration that line is just:
regxpcom >/dev/null 2>/dev/null
Running it by hand gives the same result. Running it under gdb gives
the uninformative:
Program received signal
38 matches
Mail list logo
