Title: eNewsletter 2
YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REM
Title: eNewsletter 2
YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED INTEREST IN PRODUCTS THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY ON. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE REMOVED FROM OUR MAILING LIST PLEASE CLICK THE UNSUBSCRIBE LINK AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS EMAIL. WE CAN ASSURE YOU THAT YOU WILL BE REM
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:30:50PM +, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:35:52PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Well almost the only one on [EMAIL PROTECTED] who did not want the dummy
> > packages is myself. Personaly I have no problem with removing them but
> > lot of other
Your message dated Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:58:46 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#96502: fixed in dot-forward 0.71-4
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 message dated Mon, 04 Feb 2002 15:00:27 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#96501: fixed in fastforward 0.51-5
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 message dated Mon, 04 Feb 2002 14:58:46 -0500
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#68806: fixed in dot-forward 0.71-4
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
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:35:52PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Well almost the only one on [EMAIL PROTECTED] who did not want the dummy
> packages is myself. Personaly I have no problem with removing them but
> lot of other people seems to have.
I suggest that you split the dummy packages out so
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 04:15:28PM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:03:04AM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> > that upstream refuses to fix. In fact I don't know if anything actually uses
> > this pacakge any more.. maybe it can just be removed?
>
> Reverse Depends:
> mi
On Fri, Feb 01, 2002 at 09:03:04AM -0600, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> that upstream refuses to fix. In fact I don't know if anything actually uses
> this pacakge any more.. maybe it can just be removed?
Reverse Depends:
mico-bin,libmico2.3.5
libmico-dev,libmico2.3.5
Dependencies:
2.3.5-2 - libc
Hi
Thanks for the reply. I do not take it personal and actually I appriciate
it. :)
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 01:03:55PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > I have raised this question before, but now I'm a bit frustrated.
>
> I think you will
On Mon, 04 Feb 2002, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> I have raised this question before, but now I'm a bit frustrated.
I think you will get a LOT more frustated on this issue. Let me give you a
friendly advice: don't take it personally (it probably isn't, anyway), and
go through the policy procedures or a
o provide a freely available and fully compliant implementation of the
CORBA standard. MICO has become quite popular as an OpenSource project and
is widely used for different purposes. As a major milestone, MICO has been
branded as CORBA compliant by the OpenGroup.
.
Executables
* Tille, An
Just working on clisp problem on alpha.
Suggested patch seems correct. Anyway, pkg seems lacking a groff
build-dependency also. Maybe the bug will be closed on monday.
Another RC bug disappearing hopefully...
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
Hi
I have raised this question before, but now I'm a bit frustrated.
I want to have contact with a ftp maintainer or some other
person. The thing is that I have two source packages with
multiple binary packages in the incoming directory since
november.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/org/ftp.debian.org/incomi
On 1 Feb 2002, John Goerzen wrote:
> Just s/ComplexProgramTarget/ComplexProgramTargetNoMan/ does not do the
> trick. In fact, it makes things break more. The manual says that it
> should only be used in Imakefiles tha tdescribe a single program --
> that is not the case here.
Hmm, that's sad.
>
On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Stephen Crowley wrote:
> > I do not know anything about mico-2.3.5 but I would care about an
> > NMU if you would provide a patch for the problem. I just do not want
> > to guess what is the right solution and can't test it.
> >
> > Moreover I would like to fix the missing ups
16 matches
Mail list logo
