ment, although it'll probably become
true fairly soon.
It's not a particularly good idea though; if you've got an RC bug,
you need to fix it, not find ways to get it ignored.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't
g has been changed to:
] pending
] A solution to this bug has been found and an upload will be
] made soon.
The (release critical) bugs above have been tagged pending for over a
month, so by the new definition the tag appears to not apply to the above
bugs.
-
g has been changed to:
] pending
] A solution to this bug has been found and an upload will be
] made soon.
The (release critical) bugs above have been tagged pending for over a
month, so by the new definition the tag appears to not apply to the above
bugs.
-
this patch decreases the effectiveness of gzip's deflate
implementation by, I guess, up to 258 bytes per file. For comparison:
$ echo `gzip <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
this patch decreases the effectiveness of gzip's deflate
implementation by, I guess, up to 258 bytes per file. For comparison:
$ echo `gzip <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can this be looked into, please?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Can this be looked into, please?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Ce
reassign 128101 xserver-xfree86
thanks
> > The lockup occurs under the following
> > condition:
> >
> > the frame buffer device (atyfb) is loaded and used by console. Start a
> > second X-server from an xterm on the first X-server.
> > If I start a second X-server from the console, even a fb-enabl
reassign 128101 xserver-xfree86
thanks
> > The lockup occurs under the following
> > condition:
> >
> > the frame buffer device (atyfb) is loaded and used by console. Start a
> > second X-server from an xterm on the first X-server.
> > If I start a second X-server from the console, even a fb-enabl
debian-x being explicitly
listed as a mailing list.
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> > woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special
debian-x being explicitly
listed as a mailing list.
> On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 09:10:13AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > I'd marked that bug as applying to the version in testing way back before
> > woody was released. So either "no" or "it was already special
at the package would not
>be moving to testing
You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
valid candidate.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <h
) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)
it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
for xutils until you downgraded the bug.
And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org
at the package would not
>be moving to testing
You downgraded that bug on the 27th, at which point xfree86 would've been
uploaded for about eight days -- so it would've been "too young" to be a
valid candidate.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <h
) is (less) buggy! (1 <= 1)
it's doesn't block the package from being considered. That was the case
for xutils until you downgraded the bug.
And in any event it already went in today, along with pam.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org
y (at the
potato version) since X4 went in, but I'll be removing that later this
week. (Or, alternatively, m68k could ship without an X server at all :-/)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself
y (at the
potato version) since X4 went in, but I'll be removing that later this
week. (Or, alternatively, m68k could ship without an X server at all :-/)
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:48:58AM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> X4 hasn't gone into woody yet; somehow or other it's breaking the testing
> update scripts --- blowing out the runtime from 20 minutes in total to
> more like 10 or 20 hours (I haven't let it run to see exact
On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 04:48:58AM -0500, Anthony Towns wrote:
> X4 hasn't gone into woody yet; somehow or other it's breaking the testing
> update scripts --- blowing out the runtime from 20 minutes in total to
> more like 10 or 20 hours (I haven't let it run to see exact
Hi all,
X4 hasn't gone into woody yet; somehow or other it's breaking the testing
update scripts --- blowing out the runtime from 20 minutes in total to
more like 10 or 20 hours (I haven't let it run to see exactly). I'll
poke around a bit more to try and fix this, but my net access is a
little no
Hi all,
X4 hasn't gone into woody yet; somehow or other it's breaking the testing
update scripts --- blowing out the runtime from 20 minutes in total to
more like 10 or 20 hours (I haven't let it run to see exactly). I'll
poke around a bit more to try and fix this, but my net access is a
little n
hacky, but it should work okay.
> So I can upload all but xserver-[common|fbdev] and nobody should get hurt?
I think so. Branden?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail pre
hacky, but it should work okay.
> So I can upload all but xserver-[common|fbdev] and nobody should get hurt?
I think so. Branden?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail pre
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:22:13PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:20:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For reference: m68k is the only released architecture that doesn't have
> > X4 uploaded yet.
> I know that.
I figured. :) It was the b
On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:22:13PM +0100, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2001 at 05:20:51PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > For reference: m68k is the only released architecture that doesn't have
> > X4 uploaded yet.
> I know that.
I figured. :) It w
chitectures are
out of date compared to the source).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
chitectures are
out of date compared to the source).
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
-- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
PGP signature
dists/potato to the pool for anything missing,
FWIW. The Packages/Sources files may or may not end up pointing at
the symlinks rather than the pool. This will probably first happen
sometime after the changeover, but will definitely happen during
2.2r2.
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL
dists/potato to the pool for anything missing,
FWIW. The Packages/Sources files may or may not end up pointing at
the symlinks rather than the pool. This will probably first happen
sometime after the changeover, but will definitely happen during
2.2r2.
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL
Hello world,
xfree86-xserver only has an unversioned dependency on xserver-common,
but includes binaries linked to the new glibc. Presumably there's a
shlib:Depends missing somewhere or something.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/&
Hello world,
xfree86-xserver only has an unversioned dependency on xserver-common,
but includes binaries linked to the new glibc. Presumably there's a
shlib:Depends missing somewhere or something.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/&
31 matches
Mail list logo
