On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 03:39:22PM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> > On 11 February 2012 04:13, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> >> For your information. I applied your patch and it was uploaded to
> >> Debian. But I got this mail after it is accepte
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> On 11 February 2012 04:13, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
>> For your information. I applied your patch and it was uploaded to
>> Debian. But I got this mail after it is accepted to Debian. If you can
>> provide me a patch which will help saving the
Hi there,
I patched upstream surf today to contain a similar fix. I also bumped
the surf version number in config.mk to 0.5 in preparation for a new
surf release.
I was wondering if Troels will release surf 0.5 soon or what the
general maintainer situation is concerning surf?
Cheers,
Anselm
On 11 February 2012 04:13, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> For your information. I applied your patch and it was uploaded to
> Debian. But I got this mail after it is accepted to Debian. If you can
> provide me a patch which will help saving the surf package in
> Debian it would be great.
See attached, s
Better walk the users' whole home directory and chmod 700 everything,
just in case.
For your information. I applied your patch and it was uploaded to
Debian. But I got this mail after it is accepted to Debian. If you can
provide me a patch which will help saving the surf package in
Debian it would be great.
PS: I'm just trying to save surf package on Debian
- Forwarded messa
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 12:30:01AM +0530, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> On 11:46 Fri 10 Feb , Peter Hartman wrote:
> > Fixed.
>
> Hello Peter thanks for the patch. Can the permission for cookies.txt
> can be changed to 0600 instead of 0644?.
Why? Firefox leaves cookies.sqlite or whatever world rea
On 10/02/2012 19:10, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
On 16:42 Fri 10 Feb , Nick wrote:
'Grave' eh? That seems like an exageration, to me.
Just for information
*Grave* doesn't literally mean its a *Grave* bug, but its a severity
level used by Debian bugzilla [1].
http://www.wordreference.com/ite
yes.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Vasudev Kamath wrote:
> On 11:46 Fri 10 Feb , Peter Hartman wrote:
>> Fixed.
>
> Hello Peter thanks for the patch. Can the permission for cookies.txt
> can be changed to 0600 instead of 0644?.
>
> Best Regards
> --
> Vasudev Kamath
> http://blog.copyninja
On 11:46 Fri 10 Feb , Peter Hartman wrote:
> Fixed.
Hello Peter thanks for the patch. Can the permission for cookies.txt
can be changed to 0600 instead of 0644?.
Best Regards
--
Vasudev Kamath
http://blog.copyninja.info
http://identi.ca/vasudev
vasu...@joindiaspora.com (Ostatus)
signature.
On 16:42 Fri 10 Feb , Nick wrote:
> 'Grave' eh? That seems like an exageration, to me.
Just for information
*Grave* doesn't literally mean its a *Grave* bug, but its a severity
level used by Debian bugzilla [1].
Grave in technical terms of debian Just means
"makes the package in question
Fixed.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Vasudev Kamath
wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I'm just forwarding a bug reported on surf Debian package [1]. This
> bug makes package unfit for Wheezy release.
>
> (I'm not the maintainer of package only did a recent QA upload.)
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/c
'Grave' eh? That seems like an exageration, to me. But
still, it is a bug that should be fixed, sure.
Incidentally, it seems odd to me to default to $HOME having
o+rx access...
I'll spin up a patch for this tonight, if nobody beats me to
it.
13 matches
Mail list logo
