* 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
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
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
* 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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo