Package: emacs
Version: 19.34-1
/etc/emacs/site-start.el, after upgrading from 19.31 to 19.34, contains
(load "debian-rundir")
(debian-run-directory)
which fails as there is no debian-rundir.el in the package.
--
Dirk Eddelb"uttel http://qe
Package: xosview
Version: 1.3.2-6
Xosview only reads the file XOSView (and ~/.Xdefaults) when evaluating
its X resources. It does this by doing all the reading by foot (calling
XrmGetFileDatabase() etc.).
This is IMO the wrong way to do it; the application should use
XtGetApplicationResources()
Package: xosview
Version: 1.3.2-6
Xosview should be able to monitor the /dev/ttyS* lines too; since nowadays
(with the advent of mgetty) a lot of people use /dev/ttyS* for dialout.
David
Ian Jackson wrote:
> > BTW: I didn't have much time the last weeks (and I won't have much
> > time the next weeks) so I wasn't able to check if this new source
> > format will also work for packages like netstd (packages which contain
> > lots of "sub packages" each with its own original source. Do
pgp1cnNxvhntB.pgp
Description: PGP message
Package: gs
Version: 4.01-2
The eps file attached is not displayed properly by gs 4.01.
gs 2.62 displays it correctly.
Carlos
diffusion.eps.gz
Description: GNU Zip compressed data
Dale Scheetz writes:
> Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
> distribution of source. Xforms has more severe restrictions on the
> distribution of source than pine does. It is my understanding that this
That's why there is no source available. :-)
> source distrib
>
> Package: xosview
> Version: 1.3.2-1
>
> I ran xosview with this command:
>
> xosview -geometry 48x48+388+0 &
xosview does not confirm to most X standards.
It really isn't a very nice programme.
The upstream maintainer says he will some time start using the
standard Xt interface, but h
Susan G. Kleinmann wrote:
> So, except where the ratio of
> triviality-of-bug / responsiveness-of-maintainer
> is near 0, or (better) where the reporter realizes the maintainer
> has his own motivations for fixing the bug right away, I agree with Ian that
> the right thing to do is to log
Package: xosview
Version: 1.3.2-1
I ran xosview with this command:
xosview -geometry 48x48+388+0 &
and indeed from xlsclients -l:
Window 0x282:
Machine: sfere
Name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Icon Name: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Command: xosview -geometry 48x48+388+0
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Bug#4235: cpp, gcc, dpkg "):
^ was this intentional ?
>
...
> Somehow installation with dpkg-ftp and the new cpp uninstalled my gcc
> package and look how dpkg selects on a dselect update. This shouldn't
> happen. Somehow gcc is too easily uninstalled becau
Peter Tobias asks me in private email:
...
> BTW: I didn't have much time the last weeks (and I won't have much
> time the next weeks) so I wasn't able to check if this new source
> format will also work for packages like netstd (packages which contain
> lots of "sub packages" each with its own ori
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> [...] xforms is improperly
> located in contrib instead of non-free where it belongs (because source is
> not distributed). [...]
Sourceless packages are fine to distribute in contrib, so long as the
binarie
Michael Meskes writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
...
> Ahem, this isn't exact enough IMO. With a standard Debian system I am able
> to rebuild LyX.
You can't rebuild LyX entirely from source using only packages in the
main Debian distribution.
> > [...]
Michael Meskes writes ("Re: Bug#4051: access permissions for /usr/bin/fdmount"):
> Ian Jackson writes:
...
> > Compiling names of groups or even worse group ids into binaries is a
> > bad idea.
>
> Why? Because it's not easy to change?
It's hard to change and obscure. Policy is best implemented
Dale Scheetz writes ("Re: New virtual package names. "):
> On Wed, 21 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
...
> > I can't prove that it's needless. You're shifting the burden of
> > proof. It's up to you to show that it's needed.
>
> The burden I am trying to shift onto your shoulders is for you to hav
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> > All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> > modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> > be possible for anyone to distribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes ("Re: Bruce - fiat required to end discussion on
lyx/copyright ?"):
> > All packages in the Debian distribution proper must be freely useable,
> > modifiable and redistributable in both source and binary form. It must
> > be possible for anyone to distribute
> No, that isn't what should be done, or at least not the only thing.
> I'm on my way to produce a second posctscript-viewer (front-end to gs)
> called gv, that is in some ways much better than ghostview, though there
> are too many differences in the user interface to drop ghostview instead.
Yes,
Package: gs
Version: 4.01-2
When called from xdvi, gs works as expected, but prints the
following (debugging?) messages:
gs: Error: /undefinedfilename in --file--
gs: Operand stack:
gs:(./Fontmap) (r)
gs: Execution stack:
gs:%interp_exit --nostringval-- --nostringval-- --nostringv
I agree with Brian that micro-bugs should probably be reported to the
maintainer, just because it takes more work to contact the reporter and
close the bug than to fix it. However, in this case the reporter has to
keep his _own_ bug tracking system, if he wants to make sure that the
maintainer
Package: util-linux
Version: 2.5-5
/sbin/clock seg. faults. The following illustrates this problem:
Dillweed# dpkg -i util-linux_2.5-5.deb
(Reading database ... 15590 files and directories currently
installed.)
Preparing to replace util-linux (using util-linux_2.5-5.
Ian Jackson:
> > I'm not certain that distributing HTML with the packages and other formats
> > separately is a good idea. I think it might be a better idea to continue
> > as now and use on-line conversions from man and Info to HTML. Pre-converted
> > HTML should be distributed as separate package
>
> Package: ghostview
> Version: 1.5-8
>
> Ghostview should install itself into the /etc/mailcap entry so mime
> compatible programs can use it to view postscript documents.
>
> I suggest making ghostview "Recommends: mime-support" and adding the
> following to the install scripts:
>
> debian.
Package: netstd
Version: 2.06-1
Hi...
In the README file for ppp in /usr/doc/pppd it says:
2. Make sure pppd is where dip thinks it is: /usr/lib/ppp/pppd, or
make a link from there to where pppd really is. (Or re-compile dip
to tell it where pppd is on your system - see pathnames.h).
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.3.8
In unpacking the sgmlspm dsc file on a fairly fresh system, I found:
# dpkg-source -x sgmlspm_1.03ii-2.dsc
dpkg-source: extracting sgmlspm in sgmlspm-1.03ii
dpkg-source: failure: exec patch: No such file or directory
dpkg-source: failure: patch gave error exit status
Package: dpkg
Version: 1.3.8
In unpacking the sgmlspm dsc file on a fairly fresh system, I found:
# dpkg-source -x sgmlspm_1.03ii-2.dsc
dpkg-source: failure: exec cpio: No such file or directory
dpkg-source: failure: cpio gave error exit status 2
# type -a cpio
type: cpio: not found
Installing
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Ian Jackson wrote:
> This is a different matter. Encouraging people to discuss things that
> might or might not be bugs is fine.
>
> Discouraging people from reporting things that definitely are bugs is
> not fine.
>
I agree completely, but I will still contend that the app
I've finally got around to doing these. I'm not entirely sure that
libelf belongs in devel, but since nobody has responded to my queries
on this matter... shrug. Bug me if I'm wrong.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Date: 23 Aug 96 11:07 UT
Format: 1.6
Distribution: unstable
Urgency: Low
Maint
Package: ghostview
Version: 1.5-8
Ghostview should install itself into the /etc/mailcap entry so mime
compatible programs can use it to view postscript documents.
I suggest making ghostview "Recommends: mime-support" and adding the
following to the install scripts:
debian.postinst
~~
On Sat, 24 Aug 1996, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I think our consensus is that the non-free tree is for programs not freed by
> teh copyright, while binary-only packages belong into contrib. Thus contrib
> is the correct location.
Pine is in non-free because it's copyright places restrictions on the
31 matches
Mail list logo
