On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 09:26:57AM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:14:28AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > > aptmethod got
> > > 'http://debian/debian/pool/main/x/xfce4/xfce4_4.4.2.1_all.deb'
> > > aptmethod got
> > > 'http://debian/debian/pool/main/x/xfce4-sessio
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:14:28AM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > aptmethod got
> > 'http://debian/debian/pool/main/x/xfce4/xfce4_4.4.2.1_all.deb'
> > aptmethod got
> > 'http://debian/debian/pool/main/x/xfce4-session/xfce4-session_4.4.2-6_i386.deb'
> > aptmethod error receiving
> > 'http:/
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 09:18:20AM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:19:16PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> > I didn't like the try again part of the patch. The point of this
> > function is to prevent a DOS. I could see that by keeping a socket
> > open, but not sending a
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 08:19:16PM +0100, Mark Hindley wrote:
> I didn't like the try again part of the patch. The point of this
> function is to prevent a DOS. I could see that by keeping a socket
> open, but not sending anything, you could create exactly that.
gotcha.
> I really wish I could re
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:28:45AM -0700, Sebastien Delafond wrote:
> I still got a 400 this morning, but when I tried the second time
> around I could not reproduce it; looking at your patch again, I see
> you're not retrying the sysread call if somehow it failed the first
> time, whereas initiall
I still got a 400 this morning, but when I tried the second time
around I could not reproduce it; looking at your patch again, I see
you're not retrying the sysread call if somehow it failed the first
time, whereas initially proposed on the ubuntu bug report did
that... That's the only difference I
6 matches
Mail list logo
