Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-09-04 Thread Wm Stewart
athan Buchanan wrote: > On 8/31/07, *Patrik Lermon* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On 8/31/07, Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Good problem solving - however tw

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-09-01 Thread Wm Stewart
Nathan Buchanan wrote: > On 8/31/07, *Patrik Lermon* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > On 8/31/07, Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > Good problem solving - howev

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-31 Thread Wm Stewart
but personally I suspect that your > connection to 68.142.91.87 came from another program. > > /Patrik > > On 8/31/07, Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I will file this as a new item once I find out where. Please note again >> this is not a duplic

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-31 Thread Wm Stewart
to discuss a bugzilla item, please keep this discussion on > bugzilla. This is what this is for. > > Quoting Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Can someone explain why this bug has been closed, ignored? I honestly >> thought after my first notification of surreptitious exte

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-31 Thread Wm Stewart
ta to work with" mean, since instructions on how to replicate are given above? Wm Stewart wrote: > Derek Atkins wrote: >> Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>>> I just installed my freshly built gnucash-2.2.1 on Centos-5. While >>>&g

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-29 Thread Wm Stewart
Derek Atkins wrote: > Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> I just installed my freshly built gnucash-2.2.1 on Centos-5. While >>> installing gnucash-docs, it tries to contact xml DTD repositories. >>> Is that what is happening on windows? >

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-28 Thread Wm Stewart
Stuart D. Gathman wrote: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2007, Derek Atkins wrote: > >> I'm still wondering WHY it's always trying to contact 68.142.91.87. >> What's so special about that IP Address? > > I just installed my freshly built gnucash-2.2.1 on Centos-5. While > installing gnucash-docs, it tries to

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-27 Thread Wm Stewart
Hi Derek, please let me know if this is excessive cross-posting, I'm new here and not sure what is copied to what. I've updated the bug as follows: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407458#c11 Comments 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 above are not duplicates, they refer to something different, the Window

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-08-27 Thread Wm Stewart
Hi folks, I just updated this bug, am concerned about installer virus contamination, perhaps not from GNUCash but from included code, but in any case seems to be the only explanation: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=407458 Wm Stewart wrote: > Perhaps you could test installation

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-06-04 Thread Wm Stewart
; > -derek > > Quoting Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> >> Afaik I do not have anything to do with llnw.net. My machines have >> addresses like 209.217.x.x. >> >> Derek Atkins wrote: >>> 68.142.91.87 resolves to: >>> >>>

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-06-04 Thread Wm Stewart
Afaik I do not have anything to do with llnw.net. My machines have addresses like 209.217.x.x. Derek Atkins wrote: > 68.142.91.87 resolves to: > > 87.91.142.68.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer cds192.lga.llnw.net. > > What's your host's IP Address? > > -derek

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-06-04 Thread Wm Stewart
website. We > certainly have not told it to. It's possible that it's trying to > ask the network for other gconf instances via a broadcast address > to the local network. > > -derek > > Wm Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> The bug occurred ag

Re: GnuCash 2.1.2 directions

2007-06-03 Thread Wm Stewart
d fixed the problem > permanently? (shutting down gconftool-2 and having it start again when > needed) > > Thanks, > Nathan > > PS: please cc: gnucash-devel > > > On 6/2/07, *Wm Stewart* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > >