Bug-hurd, J0|N N0\/\/ to see new 2004 foorblddeen lnccessst scenes

...Dad yanked off my little red silky panties and massaged my ppusssy rubbing my clit. Then without saying anything He rammed into me . He was so big I could feel him hit the back of my ppussy. He was so rough and hard with me that I began to moan and he had to put his hand over my mouth to muffle

Bug-hurd, J0|N N0\/\/ to see new 2004 foorblddeen lnccessst scenes

...Dad yanked off my little red silky panties and massaged my ppusssy rubbing my clit. Then without saying anything He rammed into me . He was so big I could feel him hit the back of my ppussy. He was so rough and hard with me that I began to moan and he had to put his hand over my mouth to muffle

Re: Getting hurd ISO

Aidan Delaney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi all, > I've been lurking for a week or so. I don't think this is the > forum for this question, but I can't find another forum so here goes... No, normally you will have to mail to help-hurd or debian-hurd for such questions. > I'm looking

Getting hurd ISO

Hi all, I've been lurking for a week or so. I don't think this is the forum for this question, but I can't find another forum so here goes... I'm looking for an ISO I can bring home and install on my machine and http://ftp.gnu.org/iso is empty of ISO's (I presume since the crack). Can any

OT: missing script etc

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Being able to run make and skip the generation of some `unimportant' > part, like man-pages (thats how it is used in coreutils for example). To do that, I think I'd put something like this in Makefile.am, MANTARGET = @MANTARGET@ man-pages:

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

I see no need to mess with the "missing" script for this (but I've never understood what the missing script is ever good for, I just guess it has to do with sometimes ignoring errors and then leaving generated files like configure and Makefile.in unchanged). Being able to run make and

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, the real problem is that the current configure ignores the > problem completly. Would you be happy with changing the behaviour so > that configure will print a warning if the program is missing, Right, configure should definitely display a c

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Could you also fix the mig check so that configure will barf it it > cannot find it? Having configure barf for such things can be really annoying. It's nice to be able to check out the code and do things like autoreconf && ./configure && make doc,

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

> Could you also fix the mig check so that configure will barf it > it cannot find it? Having configure barf for such things can be really annoying. It's nice to be able to check out the code and do things like autoreconf && ./configure && make doc, even if some specialized tool nee

[Fwd: [patch #2508] ext2fs support for large store (> 1.5G)]

It seems that Cc: in Savannah doesn't work, so here is the news: /**/ [patch #2508] Full Item Snapshot: URL: Project: The GNU Hurd Submitted by: Ognyan Kulev On: We

El mini-barebone AMD más silencioso del mercado

 www.kingict.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 93 320 8802 El mini-barebone más silencioso del mercado: -25.8 dBATenemos ya disponible la versión SOHO HK7N con procesador AMD Athlon XP y grabadora de DVD (-R/+R) Pioneer.

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

Just doing "configure; make" on GNU/Linux builds a working kernel. Under the assumption ofcourse that uuencode and mig are installed... If they aren't the compile process will break at some later stage. Cheers. ___ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PRO

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

Thanks a lot! It is weird that there was no report send to bug-hurd (yet) about the patch I've uploaded. Anyway, the patch that I've uploaded is without the generated files. Guess that savannahs email notification system is broken... Cheers. __

Re: GNUMach 1.x fixed (autoconf+kb)

> I would suggest spliting it up, one kb patch, and one that > touches autoconf stuff. Why? Those other changes are quite small. And I just don't see the point of splitting it up... Because it is normal, usually apperciated and that they are three completely different patches? >