Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:25:42AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > You say that while later on you claimed not to understand everything about
>> > the
>> > package (update script). Don't you have the impression that this judgement
>> > is
>> > also b
On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 09:25:42AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > You say that while later on you claimed not to understand everything about
> > the
> > package (update script). Don't you have the impression that this judgement
> > is
> > also based on incomplete information on the package ?
>
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 24 février 2007 17:02, vous avez écrit :
>> > Frank, if you think this can be solved cleanly in mediawiki1.7 why don't
>> > you just put up a complete patch instead of only one of the things to do
>> > ? If then it looks good, I would apply it
Le samedi 24 février 2007 17:02, vous avez écrit :
> > Frank, if you think this can be solved cleanly in mediawiki1.7 why don't
> > you just put up a complete patch instead of only one of the things to do
> > ? If then it looks good, I would apply it happily.
>
> Hm, I didn't do it mostly because i
Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le samedi 24 février 2007 12:46, vous avez écrit :
>> > Ok, it was my understanding from previous comments in the bug history
>> > that this couldn't be done non-intrusively, because mediawiki would then
>> > look up the real directory and use that value
Le samedi 24 février 2007 12:46, vous avez écrit :
> > Ok, it was my understanding from previous comments in the bug history
> > that this couldn't be done non-intrusively, because mediawiki would then
> > look up the real directory and use that value for things that it
> > shouldn't?
>
> In fact i
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> > It's at least an order of magnitude more complicated (=error-prone) than
>> > the
>> > solution Romain has implemented,
>
>> That's correct, not solving the FHS violation is simpler tha
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
> > It's at least an order of magnitude more complicated (=error-prone) than the
> > solution Romain has implemented,
> That's correct, not solving the FHS violation is simpler than doing it.
> > and it still doesn't address the FHS
>
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 12:54:38PM +0100, Frank Küster wrote:
>> To me that looks a bit more complicated than one would like, but still
>> quite manageable, and acceptable for fixing a RC bug in etch.
>
>> What do you think?
>
> It's at least an order of
9 matches
Mail list logo
