Re: [DNG] Definitely OT!! Re: Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

2016-02-07 Thread Rainer Weikusat
Svante Signell writes: > On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 21:07 +, Rainer Weikusat wrote: >> [...] >> >> > And BTW: How many packages have you (meaning all on this list) >> > volunteered to maintain?? >> >> As far as I can tell, the "official standpoint" of 'Devuan' in this >> respect is 'no help wante

Re: [DNG] Definitely OT!! Re: Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

2016-02-06 Thread Svante Signell
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 21:07 +, Rainer Weikusat wrote: > [...] > > > And BTW: How many packages have you (meaning all on this list) > > volunteered to maintain?? > > As far as I can tell, the "official standpoint" of 'Devuan' in this > respect is 'no help wanted'. At least, no question for tha

Re: [DNG] Definitely OT!! Re: Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

2016-02-06 Thread Rainer Weikusat
Rainer Weikusat writes: > [...] > >> And BTW: How many packages have you (meaning all on this list) >> volunteered to maintain?? > > As far as I can tell, the "official standpoint" of 'Devuan' in this > respect is 'no help wanted'. At least, no question for that I saw on > this list, including my

Re: [DNG] Definitely OT!! Re: Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

2016-02-06 Thread Rainer Weikusat
[...] > And BTW: How many packages have you (meaning all on this list) > volunteered to maintain?? As far as I can tell, the "official standpoint" of 'Devuan' in this respect is 'no help wanted'. At least, no question for that I saw on this list, including my own, has ever received an answer. S

[DNG] Definitely OT!! Re: Bad UEFI: was Systemd at work: rm -rf EFI

2016-02-06 Thread Svante Signell
On Sat, 2016-02-06 at 12:14 -0500, Steve Litt wrote: > On Sat, 06 Feb 2016 16:19:07 + > Rainer Weikusat wrote: > > > Steve Litt writes: > [clip] > Come on, Rainer, it's obvious your last sentence is assumed in my > statement. What, did I have to completely specify it just to make the > obvi