Your message dated Sat, 07 Apr 2012 10:46:46 -0400
with message-id <4f805356.7050...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#653158: www.debian.org: /y2k/ page is probably obsolete
has caused the Debian Bug report #653158,
regarding www.debian.org: /y2k/ page is probably obsolete
to be marked a
* Paul Wise [2011-12-24 14:34:42 CET]:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Severity: normal
>
> Since we are now well past Y2K, it is probably time to delete this:
>
> http://www.debian.org/y2k/
>
> Any objections?
Uhm, quite frankly, yes. We are also well past 1997 and we
On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> Since we are now well past Y2K, it is probably time to delete this:
>
> http://www.debian.org/y2k/
>
> Any objections?
I have three reasons / possibilities why this might not be desirable:
(1) Are there any major institutions w
Package: www.debian.org
Severity: normal
Since we are now well past Y2K, it is probably time to delete this:
http://www.debian.org/y2k/
Any objections?
--
bye,
pabs
http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:52:34PM +0200, Jutta Wrage wrote:
> Should the pages be removed or retained for historical information?
Don't know but they certainly don't warrant any work put into fixing
HTML in them, just let them rot for now.
> Makes no sense to create patches for pages, that will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Should the pages be removed or retained for historical information?
Makes no sense to create patches for pages, that will be removed soon.
greetings
Jutta
- --
http://www.witch.westfalen.de
http://witch.muensterland.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGN
Gerfried Fuchs:
> You mean, like the hamm pages?
No, the hamm pages are linked, and they are about something that still
exists (a Debian release), whereas the y2k pages are about something
that no longer exist (the upcoming year 1999/2000 shift and the
transitaional bugs that come with
* Peter Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2003-01-18 13:19]:
> Is there any good reason to keep the Y2k pages around? They're
> obviously obsolete, and refers to old versions of programs.
You mean, like the hamm pages? I guess for historical reasons. Why
not keep them? I guess
Hi!
Is there any good reason to keep the Y2k pages around? They're
obviously obsolete, and refers to old versions of programs.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
I do not read or respond to mail with HTML attachments.
Your message dated Sun, 5 Jan 2003 16:15:56 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#175437: www.debian.org: Broken link to www.uk.linux.org
from debian.org/y2k
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem ha
Package: www.debian.org
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-01-05
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There are minor broken links in the debian y2k page. It seems as if
www.uk.linux.org => www.linux.org.uk, but they didn't set up the
redirect
Hi,
I was checking and committing some new translations from Debian Chinese
volunteers, and noticed that some English web pages may be a little bit
out-dated, or may need some clarification.
For example, I guess the Y2K issue have come and passed, and the y2k/*
refers to package versions from
James A. Treacy:
> The second is that they may be useful in the future to point to how
> well we did with the y2k fiasco.
Well, first of all, the pages can be retrieved from the CVS if anyone
is genuinely interested. And second of all, the list of packages is not
very useful anyway when l
On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:42:43PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:14:38PM +0100, peter karlsson wrote:
> > Do we still need the Y2K pages? They are quite outdated, and not really
> > relevant any longer.
>
> I say dump it (and i wrote them). I'
On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 04:14:38PM +0100, peter karlsson wrote:
> Do we still need the Y2K pages? They are quite outdated, and not really
> relevant any longer.
I say dump it (and i wrote them). I'll wait a few days and ifn there is
no complaints I'll delete them. There should
Hi!
Do we still need the Y2K pages? They are quite outdated, and not really
relevant any longer.
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html
ith local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 134NRK-0008Q8-00; Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:47:38 +0100
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:47:38 +0100
From: Julian Gilbey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian bug reports <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: www.debian.org: Y2K bug in mailing list archive search date list
Me
g with SMTP; 4 Apr 2000 03:27:17 -
Received: (qmail 22376 invoked by uid 500); 4 Apr 2000 03:26:56 -
Date: 4 Apr 2000 03:26:56 -
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: www.debian.org: mailing list search has y2k bug
To: [EMAIL PROTEC
4 Feb 2000 13:29:43 -
Received: from tom by nadia.onegeek.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian))
id 12Gins-RI-00; Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:29:40 -0500
From: Tom Rothamel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Y2k bug in ML search page
X
Package: www.debian.org
Version: as
The list for the dates to be searched at the bottom of
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/ has the dates in reverse time
order -- except that 00 sorts as older that 99. Oops!
Julian
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Package: www.debian.org
Version: 2404
Severity: normal
According to http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/:
Date filter
Selecting nothing will search the most recent quarter.
But try searching for a recent thread, like "Signing Packages.gz" in
debian-devel. First, select no date
Tom Rothamel wrote:
> Package: www.debian.org
> Version: N/A;
> Severity: normal
>
> There's a y2k problem on the page where the mailing list archive can
> be searched from (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/). The "Date
> filter" field lists the current
Package: www.debian.org
Version: N/A;
Severity: normal
There's a y2k problem on the page where the mailing list archive can
be searched from (http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/). The "Date
filter" field lists the current year as year '0' and sorts it after
older years.
orphaned Lists-Archives, iirc, looking for a
> > new maintainer.
> >
> > That's why *we* fixed the other y2k issues.
> >
> > > can look into it and try to patch it up... The search section of the
> > > page and
> > > glimpse is setup and
ntainer.
>
> That's why *we* fixed the other y2k issues.
>
> > can look into it and try to patch it up... The search section of the page
> > and
> > glimpse is setup and maintained with the Lists-Archives.
>
> I haven't had a look at glimpse, so I'
; To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Unfortunatly, it's a Lists-Archives problem.. but if Guy is currently absent,
> we
Guy said that he has orphaned Lists-Archives, iirc, looking
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Does one of the webmasters feel responsible for this?
>
> Regards,
>
> Joey
>
> Cesar Mendoza wrote:
> > Hi,
> >> I don't know if you notice, but the search in lists archives is not
> > working. THe date filter box is not sorted the way it should be and the
> > sear
Does one of the webmasters feel responsible for this?
Regards,
Joey
Cesar Mendoza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't know if you notice, but the search in lists archives is not
> working. THe date filter box is not sorted the way it should be and the
> search doesn't work for this quarter.
>
> B
Brian Bassett wrote:
> "James A. Treacy" wrote:
> > Brian, could you apply this patch to the slink version of wml (1.6.8)
> > and upload it for inclusion in the next release of slink?
>
> Done. The package has been uploaded to Incoming, and can also be found
> in /debian/home/brianb/build on mast
A y2k compliant version of wml has been installed on master.
I removed the hack in ctime.wml which will cause all the
pages to be rebuilt. This should fix any bad dates in
the META tags.
Since all the pages are rebuilding anyway, this would be a good
time to make any changes that would do the
"James A. Treacy" wrote:
> Brian, could you apply this patch to the slink version of wml (1.6.8)
> and upload it for inclusion in the next release of slink?
Done. The package has been uploaded to Incoming, and can also be found
in /debian/home/brianb/build on master.
Brian
Darren O. Benham wrote:
> The y2K is partially fixed... the archive are being saved correctly now.. I
> havn't found how to get 2000 into the index page, though...
That's what we tried this afternoon. Wait for the next cron to
find out if we did the correct thing.
> On Thu,
The y2K is partially fixed... the archive are being saved correctly now.. I
havn't found how to get 2000 into the index page, though...
On Thu, Jan 06, 2000 at 04:16:46PM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Since it has annoyed me long enough, Tommi Virtanen, Petr Eech and
> me have inves
Hi,
I have been working with the lists-archives package and submited y2k fixes
to Johnie Ingram the current maintainer. I have it working at
http://www.kitiara.org/Lists-Archives . If you want to take a look to my
fixes contact me.
Bye
Cesar Mendoza
http://www.kitiara.org
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000
Since it has annoyed me long enough, Tommi Virtanen, Petr Eech and
me have investigated the problem and worked out a patch. If it
works, the archives for 2000 are back online tomorrow. If it
doesn't, well, then they're still not online and we need some
more black magic...
Regards,
Joey
James A. Treacy said:
> On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> > I just thought this should be changed..
> > "With the year 2000 fast approaching "
> >
> Craig, could you update (or simply replace) the y2k page with information
>
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 11:19:52AM +0300, Max Kosmach wrote:
> Hello
>
> look:
> www.debian.org/index.ru.html source:
>
>
>
> Looks like Y2K bug :(
>
Yes it is. The machine that houses the web source is running an old version
of wml which has some known y2k is
On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 08:36:08AM +0100, Marcin Owsiany wrote:
> I just thought this should be changed..
> "With the year 2000 fast approaching "
>
Craig, could you update (or simply replace) the y2k page with information
on the packages that had y2k problems? The DWN has a go
I just thought this should be changed..
"With the year 2000 fast approaching "
--
-
Marcin Owsiany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
Hello
look:
www.debian.org/index.ru.html source:
Looks like Y2K bug :(
With MBR
Max
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James A. Treacy wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 10:54:10PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
>> Hi Debian People,
>>
>> all y2k known bugs have been fixed in wml-1.7.1.
>> If you do not want to upgrade to wml-1.7.4, you may apply the attached
>> p
On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 10:54:10PM +0100, Denis Barbier wrote:
> Hi Debian People,
>
> all y2k known bugs have been fixed in wml-1.7.1.
> If you do not want to upgrade to wml-1.7.4, you may apply the attached
> patch against wml-1.6.8.
>
This is what I call good service. :) S
[cc to Brian Bassett, recent maintainer of the WML Debian package]
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, James A. Treacy wrote:
> There is a y2k bug in the version of wml on master that has kept the
> web pages from updating in the new year. The variables $WML_GEN_ISOTIME
> and $WML_SRC_ISOTIME compute
James A. Treacy wrote:
> There is a y2k bug in the version of wml on master that has kept the
> web pages from updating in the new year. The variables $WML_GEN_ISOTIME
> and $WML_SRC_ISOTIME compute the year incorrectly. 'print STDERR
> $WML_SRC_ISOTIME' gave:
>
> 03-
There is a y2k bug in the version of wml on master that has kept the
web pages from updating in the new year. The variables $WML_GEN_ISOTIME
and $WML_SRC_ISOTIME compute the year incorrectly. 'print STDERR
$WML_SRC_ISOTIME' gave:
03-01-19100 10:09:58
It is a common misconception that t
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:34:22PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> So has anyone replied to those "Y2K end of the world doomsday, take your
> canned water and gun head for the hills" morons that were so busy the
> last few weeks?
>
> I did, I asked them if they felt like t
So has anyone replied to those "Y2K end of the world doomsday, take your
canned water and gun head for the hills" morons that were so busy the
last few weeks?
I did, I asked them if they felt like the total morans that they
obviously are. Obviously from their point of view it is the
Wichert Akkerman said:
> I think we need to revamp the Y2K page; the list that is currently has
> is IMHO almost useless; I suggest replacing it with the list of Y2k
> updates that have been included in 2.1r4 and a link to the GNU Y2K page.
It hasn't been useless because it has sto
I think we need to revamp the Y2K page; the list that is currently has
is IMHO almost useless; I suggest replacing it with the list of Y2k
updates that have been included in 2.1r4 and a link to the GNU Y2K page.
Wichert
Vincent Renardias said:
> it currently reads:
>
> elm-me+ >=2.4pl25ME+56-1OK?
>
> while it should read
>
> elm-me+ >=2.4pl25ME+65-1OK?
>
Why? I couldn't find any Y2K fixes in the changelog between these
versions. Have I
On Mon, 29 Nov 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> Vincent Renardias said:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> > > I have made the following changes to the Y2K pages:
> > > elm-me+ <=2.4pl25ME+52-1 BAD http://www.ozone.fmi.fi/KEH/elm-2.4ME+.README
> &g
Vincent Renardias said:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Craig Small wrote:
> > I have made the following changes to the Y2K pages:
> > elm-me+ <=2.4pl25ME+52-1 BAD http://www.ozone.fmi.fi/KEH/elm-2.4ME+.README
> > elm-me+ 2.4pl25ME+56-1 OK? http://www.ozone.fmi.fi/KEH/elm-2.4ME+.RE
Vincent Renardias said:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999, Stephen Turner wrote:
> > Also, elm should be added to the Debian Y2K page http://www.debian.org/y2k/
>
> Webmaster:
>
> Versions up to and including 2.4pl25ME+59 are known to have y2k
> problems.
> >From elm's ch
There is a problem with the y2k page, I'm aware of it and have fixed it.
- Craig
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7 47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian
Previously James A. Treacy wrote:
> Let's hear what they are proposing and then decide. For example,
> many people would object to the use of a non-free product.
They'll set it up this week so you can give it a try.
Wichert.
--
_
Previously James A. Treacy wrote:
> Let's hear what they are proposing and then decide. For example,
> many people would object to the use of a non-free product.
Debian package running on a Debian server. I think using ht:dig iirc.
Wichert.
--
_
On Tue, Oct 19, 1999 at 02:33:10AM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
>
> This apparently got buried in the thread but it's important...
>
> Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On a related note: Cistron (the people hosting www.nl.debian.org)
> > appears to be willing to setup a searchengin
This apparently got buried in the thread but it's important...
Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On a related note: Cistron (the people hosting www.nl.debian.org)
> appears to be willing to setup a searchengine for the website. Is
> there any interest in this?
I think this would be
On Sat, Oct 16, 1999 at 08:57:43PM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> Are we talking about the same page?
>
> scooter$ lynx -source http://www.debian.org/y2k/index.html | grep -i option
The subject is links to that page, not links from that page.
I gotta run though (plane to catch).
--
Raul
ying around with it a bit -- not sure I'm going to come
> up with anything particularly notable, but I noticed that there's
> bogus tags on the page. At least, I think these are bogus..
> is there some html standard that talks about tags?
Are we talking about the same page?
s
SCII stuff).
I'll change that.
> Should we send a note to all maintainer to ask them to check if their
> packages are y2k-safe? If we get info for all packages we will have
> to reorganize the list as well..
I sent an email... three months ago, got some great responses from
about, say, 5
> is there some html standard that talks about tags?
They are obviously in HTML 4.0, since validator.w3.org doesn't complain on
that.
--
\\//
peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
- and God said: nohup make World >& World.log &
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 11:11:34AM -0400, James A. Treacy wrote:
> Anyone care to spend a little time looking into some reorganization?
> We need to make sure that information is organized so that it is
> easy to find.
I've been playing around with it a bit -- not sure I'm going to come
up with an
anything. I'm afraid we are approaching
> that point again. We had the same problem before the last web
> reorganization.
I seem to remember a y2k statement on the release-page, but I couldn't
find that either. Perhaps a small link should be put there as well?
About the list: dialog
On Tue, Oct 12, 1999 at 02:49:34PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
>
> I just had somebody ask me if there was any y2k-info for Debian.. a quick
> search of the site revealed absolutely nothing..
>
> Some looking around on va produce http://www.debian.org/y2k/, which has
> s
I just had somebody ask me if there was any y2k-info for Debian.. a quick
search of the site revealed absolutely nothing..
Some looking around on va produce http://www.debian.org/y2k/, which has
some info but seems really incomplete.
Is that page still intended to be our y2k-page, and if so why
Anthony Wong wrote:
> I think it is necessary to define tags for the words 'Package', 'Version',
> 'Status' and 'URL' in english/y2k/*.data so we can have these words in
> our own languages. Any opinions?
It was something I was always going to
Looks like I made the changes but forgot to commit them. Oh well.
I added your translations and have committed the changes for real
this time.
Jay Treacy
Oops, press the 'y' key too quick and sent the wrong files, here are
the correct patches...
--
Cheers,
Anthony Wong. [ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / ICQ UIN: C30E6 ]
--- index.data Thu May 6 16:36:53 1999
+++ index.data.new Wed May 12 01:08:12 1999
@@ -41,6 +41,22 @@
[ZH:¥þ³¡:]
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 01:48:30PM -0400, James A. Treacy wrote:
|On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 10:51:18PM +0800, Anthony Wong wrote:
|> I think it is necessary to define tags for the words 'Package', 'Version',
|> 'Status' and 'URL' in english/y2k/*
On Sun, May 09, 1999 at 10:51:18PM +0800, Anthony Wong wrote:
> I think it is necessary to define tags for the words 'Package', 'Version',
> 'Status' and 'URL' in english/y2k/*.data so we can have these words in
> our own languages. Any opinions?
> I think it is necessary to define tags for the words 'Package', 'Version',
> 'Status' and 'URL' in english/y2k/*.data so we can have these words in
> our own languages. Any opinions?
That would be a good idea, yes.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.s
I think it is necessary to define tags for the words 'Package', 'Version',
'Status' and 'URL' in english/y2k/*.data so we can have these words in
our own languages. Any opinions?
--
Cheers,
Anthony Wong. [ E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / ICQ UIN: C30E6 ]
To keep the Y2K pages up-to-date for all languages, would it be possible to
just cut out all the lines, put them in an own file, and do an
include, like it is done with the vendor pages?
If so, this really should be done.
--
\\//
Peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
When answering to mailing
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 05:02:09PM -0500, Nils Lohner wrote:
>
> This site has a lot of info on it... it's referenced for a few packages on
> our y2k pages I think. Perhaps we can work together with them to put
> together y2k pages for Linux in general?
>
> http://ww
This site has a lot of info on it... it's referenced for a few packages on
our y2k pages I think. Perhaps we can work together with them to put
together y2k pages for Linux in general?
http://www-th.phys.rug.nl/~schut/gnulist.html
Nils.
On Thu, Jan 28, 1999 at 08:45:54AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> G'day All,
> I think it is time that the Debian Y2K statement came out from its
> hiding place and was put where all can see it.
>
I'm glad to see this hasn't been forgotten. I've been meaning to
G'day All,
I think it is time that the Debian Y2K statement came out from its
hiding place and was put where all can see it.
Could everyone have a look at http://master.debian.org/~csmall/y2k.html
and check it? If it is ok, can JT or someone else who understands the
CVS archive tell me
Here is something I sent someone who needed to show his boss a y2k
statement asap. It touches on a few ideas we should mention:
Debian is based on the Linux kernel which is known to be free of any Y2K
problems. Most of the software in Debian is POSIX compliant, and as such,
handles dates in
o say that
Linux does not suffer from any Y2k problems.
As for the other software we should state that the vast majority
of software is not concerned with dates so will not suffer from
any Y2k problems. We can then give a list of URLs for software
where there may be a concern. For example, there is
> I'm getting together a web page that will make a Debian Y2K Non-statement.
Bruce sent one to -announce at one point before he left the project
(probably about this time last year). You might use it as a reference ...
G'day All,
I'm getting together a web page that will make a Debian Y2K Non-statement.
I think we need to say something, and my idea was that we have a small
summary table and a bunch of links going off to the site that says yes
or no.
It looks some
82 matches
Mail list logo
