On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:18:48AM -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
> I have to agree with the submitted of this bug. In fact, I came to the
> BTS to see if anyone else had reported this "new" annoying behavior,
> so I am glad I am not the only one annoyed by this.
Not much I can do it about it. Peopl
I have to agree with the submitted of this bug. In fact, I came to the
BTS to see if anyone else had reported this "new" annoying behavior,
so I am glad I am not the only one annoyed by this.
There used to be an question in debconf that said something like "do
you want to handle your XF86Config-4
On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:18:48AM -0400, Eloy A. Paris wrote:
> I have to agree with the submitted of this bug. In fact, I came to the
> BTS to see if anyone else had reported this "new" annoying behavior,
> so I am glad I am not the only one annoyed by this.
Not much I can do it about it. Peopl
I have to agree with the submitted of this bug. In fact, I came to the
BTS to see if anyone else had reported this "new" annoying behavior,
so I am glad I am not the only one annoyed by this.
There used to be an question in debconf that said something like "do
you want to handle your XF86Config-4
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-10
Severity: important
After the upgrade I was not asked if I want to configure the package.
In fact, there was no way to abandon enforced configuration.
Package configuration scripts HAVE TO ask if it is okay with the system
administrator if they would han
Package: xserver-xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-10
Severity: important
After the upgrade I was not asked if I want to configure the package.
In fact, there was no way to abandon enforced configuration.
Package configuration scripts HAVE TO ask if it is okay with the system
administrator if they would han
6 matches
Mail list logo
