Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-14 Thread Charl P. Botha
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:35:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Let me again extend my thanks to you for making these packages. I think > they really do play a part in keeping nagging folks off my back. It's been a pleasure. Your packages are naturally very well-behaved. ;) -- charl p. bot

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-13 Thread Charl P. Botha
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 06:35:05PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Let me again extend my thanks to you for making these packages. I think > they really do play a part in keeping nagging folks off my back. It's been a pleasure. Your packages are naturally very well-behaved. ;) -- charl p. bo

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-13 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:50:01PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote: > Okeley... shall I rebuild the current ones to be 4.1.0-0potato9, or can I > wait for 4.1.0potato10? You may as well wait. The packages are unofficial anyway, so it's not like there is a supported upgrade path in any case. Let me a

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-13 Thread Branden Robinson
On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 04:50:01PM +0100, Charl P. Botha wrote: > Okeley... shall I rebuild the current ones to be 4.1.0-0potato9, or can I > wait for 4.1.0potato10? You may as well wait. The packages are unofficial anyway, so it's not like there is a supported upgrade path in any case. Let me

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-13 Thread Charl P. Botha
Okeley... shall I rebuild the current ones to be 4.1.0-0potato9, or can I wait for 4.1.0potato10? Thanks, Charl On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]:

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-13 Thread Charl P. Botha
Okeley... shall I rebuild the current ones to be 4.1.0-0potato9, or can I wait for 4.1.0potato10? Thanks, Charl On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 12:06:08PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]:

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Andreas Metzler
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: >> UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. >> See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS > Is there a reason these shouldn't be versioned 9potato1 so i

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: > > UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. > > See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS > > Is there a reason these shouldn't

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Scott Dier
* Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: > UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. > See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS Is there a reason these shouldn't be versioned 9potato1 so if someone uses a automated bug tool that bra

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Andreas Metzler
Scott Dier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: >> UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. >> See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS > Is there a reason these shouldn't be versioned 9potato1 so

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Branden Robinson
On Mon, Nov 12, 2001 at 10:36:20AM -0600, Scott Dier wrote: > * Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: > > UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. > > See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS > > Is there a reason these shouldn't

Re: debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-12 Thread Scott Dier
* Charl P. Botha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [011108 16:35]: > UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. > See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS Is there a reason these shouldn't be versioned 9potato1 so if someone uses a automated bug tool that br

debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-08 Thread Charl P. Botha
UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS Thanks, Charl -- charl p. botha | computer graphics and cad/cam http://cpbotha.net/ | http://www.cg.its.tudelft.nl/

debian 2.2 "potato" builds of the 4.1.0-9 debs available

2001-11-08 Thread Charl P. Botha
UNOFFICIAL builds of Branden's official XFree86 4.1.0-9 debs are available. See http://people.debian.org/~cpbotha/xf410_potato/READ.THIS Thanks, Charl -- charl p. botha | computer graphics and cad/cam http://cpbotha.net/ | http://www.cg.its.tudelft.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAI