At Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:32:17 -0400,
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:47:55PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
>
> > At 21 Jun 2003 00:27:18 +0200,
> > Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > > RedHat provide glibc for i386, i586 and i686. Why doesn't Debian
> > > provide several packages for i*86 w
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-25
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: libebml
Version : CVS
Upstream Author : Steve Lhomme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.matroska.org/
* License : dual GPL/QPL
Description : Extensible Binary Me
Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 2. Modify fakeroot to check the kernel version, the type of fs on which it
> is currently working and have it issue a sysctl to enable
> restricted_chown. It looks better than #1 but it might incurr
Er, is this even possible as an ordinary
Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> During some of the discussions lately on debian-devel another usage of
> the changelog has risen interest:
>
> * New upstream release (closes: #123, #124, #125)
>
> This has also raised some discussions. The thing is this: If #123,
> #124 and #125 ar
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:17:36PM -0400, Colin Walters scribbled:
> On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:34, Marek Habersack wrote:
>
> > 5. Influence the XFS/kernel maintainers to change the default value of
> > restrict_chown to enabled.
>
> I think they really should do this. Having people be abl
I demand that Dan Jacobson may or may not have written...
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
"I have here a 20K package. Should it have a 1/3-line description?"
;-)
--
| Darren Salt | nr. Ashington, | l
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 18:34, Marek Habersack wrote:
> 5. Influence the XFS/kernel maintainers to change the default value of
> restrict_chown to enabled.
I think they really should do this. Having people be able to give away
files is something that you usually *don't* want by default.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> > My logic was that, from the basic system, Maildir mailboxes are no
> > use.
>
> Can I have a bit of the weed you are smoking? Seems to be good.
They're pine needles. I really do need to get off them, they're keeping my
brain in the 70's...
On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 07:07:46AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> Anyway, one liner "snob" descriptions just have to go.
>
> $ apt-cache show emacs21
> Description: The GNU Emacs editor
> GNU Emacs is the extensible self-documenting text editor.
>
> Oops, I see, it is self-documenting.
that's act
>> avg. bytes per description lines 66321.8
A> Is that just a meaningless number, or is there actually a correlation
A> between package size and description length?
Somebody with statistics experience might go further and see if little
packages have big descriptions and visa versa etc.
Anyway, o
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:15:42AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 10:59 am, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > > Tell me when you upload this, so I can file an rc bug against it, for
> > > modifying other pac
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 08:19:35AM +0200, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do. Why
> do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir is not
> only capable of storing messages in Maildir folders but also of
> generating them. This i
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one
> > > > source file
> >
Dear Julien,
Thank you for responding to my email. We understand the existing issues
which you have explained below and to make this more clear is that EPSON
Kowa handles the License agreement. We have nothing to do with the
licensing agreement for the Image Scan! for Linux. We're sure that the
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:30:26PM +0200, Mario Lang wrote:
> I think such a machine would be valuable to increase the quality
> of the Hurd port overall.
Maybe. But also keep in mind that porting to GNU/Hurd is a bit more
complicated than porting to just another Linux architecture, because of
s
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:21:18PM -0400, Jim Penny scribbled:
[snip]
> > > > > Description field is inappropriate, use something like:
> > > >
> > > > > Description: A GNU/autoconf alternative.
> >
> > > > Try "an alternative to GNU autoconf" or "a substitute for GNU
> > > > autoconf", to avoid
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek scribbled:
> > Try "an alternative to GNU autoconf" or "a substitute for GNU autoconf",
> > to avoid confusion with Debian's alternatives syste
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 05:14:56PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
scribbled:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > It's not quite a substitute, as it won't reuse autoconf's configs etc. How
> > about "A tool for configuring software source similar to GNU Aut
Hey list,
Running debuild as normal user under the 2.5.73+ kernel results in fakeroot
actually setting the file ownership to root (or any other uid/gid for that
matter). The result is that the parts which don't run under fakeroot -
e.g. debian/rules won't be able to write to the debian/packagen
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 04:15:29PM -0500, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> > Not all of it, but you can't object to duplicating a single sentence saying
> > what it is.
>
> When the sentence in question is the one that goes in the short
> description, and already fills the a
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:25:03PM -0700, Neil Spring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> was
heard to say:
> dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitution variables are
> limited to a single line (which seems poorly suited to long
> descriptions).
Then as long as the shared part is a single paragraph you should be
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek scribbled:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De
> > > Vitis wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> It's not quite a substitute, as it won't reuse autoconf's configs etc. How
> about "A tool for configuring software source similar to GNU Autoconf"?
Sorry for my previous reply to this message, your suggestion is definitely
good.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> It's not quite a substitute, as it won't reuse autoconf's configs etc. How
> about "A tool for configuring software source similar to GNU Autoconf"?
I see your point, but your suggestion is still too long: it should be
rephrased to
Hi,
Here is a list of bugs older than a year; most of them are related to
translated debconf templates, so fixing them is trivial and I might
NMU some of these packages soon.
#BRDate Package Maintainer
103324 (03 Jul 2001) diald Jeff Licquia
106150 (21 Jul 2001) ni
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-25
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kernel-patch-2.4-low-latency
Upstream Author : Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.zip.com.au/~akpm/linux/schedlat.html
* License : GPL
Description : Reduces
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek scribbled:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> >
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
"Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Some time ago, Martin Schulze pointed out that there is no developer
> accessible Hurd machine available.
>
> I am happy to coordinate the donation of hardware for this if it is
> this something that you
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:25:23PM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> Use ${description}, and debian/substvars. This is already supported.
> RTFM.
is there FM in the form of an example package? or can you
think of a method of finding packages that use this
technique?
dpkg-souce(1) implies that substitut
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 10:41:59PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one
> > > source file
> > > which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libf
Hello
On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 01:12:20PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote:
> Some progress has been made toward the goal of making
> Debian easier to use with a read-only root filesystem.
> Action has been taken to remove variable files from /etc/,
> or at least to make it possible to do so locally, in th
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:52:20PM -0500, Steve Langasek scribbled:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Description : The pmk project aims to be an alternative
Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
>>>I don't think that filing a bug saying that "Your extended package
>>>description does not meet Debian policy requirements. Please consider
>>>writing 4-5 lines to give sysadmins an idea what your package can do
>>>for them." means asking too much from a Debian maintainer
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:23:25PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> Alright, this happened far too often lately to be ignored. This must
> stop, pretty please. The developers-reference[1] isn't written just for
> fun.
[snip]
/me stands up
_ _ _ _
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:17:58PM +0200, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> > the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one source
> > file
> > which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libfoo",
> > libfoo-doc = "documention for libfoo", and libfoo = "runtime
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:46:52PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
> scribbled:
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Description : The pmk project aims to be an alternativ
Josip Rodin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
>>>I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the
>>>duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should
>>>usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, w
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> [...]
> > Description : The pmk project aims to be an alternative to
> > GNU/autoconf (configure scripts).
>
> Description field is inappropri
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 02:44:17PM -0500, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis
scribbled:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> [...]
> > Description : The pmk project aims to be an alternative to
> > GNU/autoconf (configure scripts).
>
> Description field is inapp
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:30:31PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
[...]
> Description : The pmk project aims to be an alternative to GNU/autoconf
> (configure scripts).
Description field is inappropriate, use something like:
Description: A GNU/autoconf alternative.
ciao,
--
Luca - De Whis
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Johannes Rohr wrote:
> > I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the
> > duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should
> > usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for,
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: pmk
Version : 0.4.5
Upstream Author : Damien Couderc & Xavier Santolaria
* URL : http://premk.sf.net/
* License : BSD
Description : The pmk project aims to be an alt
Hi!
I was just looking for a 'open use' debian favicon. But i can't find it on
http://www.debian.org/logos/index.en.html
Is it ok to use the resource from http://www.debian.org/favicon.ico ?
Shouldn't it also be published on the logo page?
Regards
Henning
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:09:25AM -0700, Keegan Quinn wrote:
> On Sunday 22 June 2003 12:48 am, Mohammed Sameer wrote:
> > i was thinking about splitting duali itself into 2 packages:
> > 1- duali "the main dictionary"
> > 2- duali-dev "contain the script"
> > duali-data build-depends on duali-dev
I've been meaning to write this for a while. I wrote up a procecure and I
may have even posted it. I include files indicated by cruft in my backups.
I'm also looking at checking md5sums and atimes to help decide if backups
of files like conf files is neccisary or if they're just the defaults from
t
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 10:59 am, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> > Tell me when you upload this, so I can file an rc bug against it, for
> > modifying other packages conffiles.
>
> *g*
>
> 5 serious replies already -- sorry Adam, I'm
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: debbackup
> > Version : 0.1
> > Upstream Author : Daniel Sto
Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
> > * Package name: debbackup
> >
> > - installing/updating required packages, restoring configuration files,
> > and more.
>
> Tell me when you upload this, so I can file an rc bug against it, for
> modifying other packages conff
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the
> > duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should
> > usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier
> > would
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
>
[snip]
> > debbackup is a supplemental, Debian-specific, backup program. It backs
> > up only what is needed to restore from a fresh install, with data
> > recovered - package information (incl
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:56:03PM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
> the worst culprits are usually sets of binary packages from the one source
> file
> which have package descriptions like libfoo-dev = "dev files for libfoo",
> libfoo-doc = "documention for libfoo", and libfoo = "runtime files for fo
Hi Farideh,
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 04:15:25PM -0700, Farideh Sherbaf wrote:
> Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Farideh Sherbaf and I
> am your contact for EPSON Worldwide Developer Relations for scanners
> and All-In-One (Multifunction) products. The EPSON Developer
> Relations
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 11:44:51AM -0500, Adam Heath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: debbackup
> > Version : 0.1
> > Upstream Author : Daniel Stone <[EMAI
Le mar 24/06/2003 à 18:44, Adam Heath a écrit :
> Tell me when you upload this, so I can file an rc bug against it, for
> modifying other packages conffiles.
In the meantime, you can still file RC bugs against all text editors
that allow to modify conffiles.
Hint: maybe this package won't modify
* Adam Heath ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030624 18:50]:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > * Package name: debbackup
> > Version : 0.1
> > Upstream Author : Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Johannes Rohr wrote:
> I'd say that writing a meaningful package description is certainly the
> duty of the individual package maintainer. A package maintainer should
> usually have an idea of what his/her package is good for, while Javier
> would probably have to spend a lot more time to figure th
Dear Matt,
Thank you for responding to my email. I will use Julien as scanner contact
person. However, if possible I appreciate if I could also obtain your
signature info for our database.
Best regards,
Farideh
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Zimmerman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Faride
On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: debbackup
> Version : 0.1
> Upstream Author : Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * URL : http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dsto
On Tuesday 24 June 2003 11:51, Daniel Stone wrote:
> Package: wnpp
> Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
> Severity: wishlist
>
> * Package name: debbackup
> Version : 0.1
Version 0.1...
How much of it does already work? How much is sid specific and won't work on
woody/sarge?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:47:55PM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote:
> At 21 Jun 2003 00:27:18 +0200,
> Mathieu Roy wrote:
> > RedHat provide glibc for i386, i586 and i686. Why doesn't Debian
> > provide several packages for i*86 when the package can be optimized a
> > lot depending on the CPU type?
>
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:29:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > He wants to know when a particular package was last updated,
> > > without
> > > having to download it and examine the gzip time stamp and/or
> > > changelog.
> >
> > It is unfortun
Am Die, 2003-06-24 um 03.46 schrieb Matthew Palmer:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Now I'm wondering about it even more. IMHO `maildirmake' is _very_
> > necessary for any mail and as it seems to be only a 2-line-shell-script
> > why it isn't included anywhere and anyway in
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 03:14:26PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:29:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > He wants to know when a particular package was last updated, without
> > > having to download it and examine the gzip time stamp and/or chang
Hallo Tollef,
* Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>* Jan Schulz
>| sources.list. Unfortunatelly I don't have that much webspace to do
>| a woody backport myself...
>deb http://mirror.raw.no/ gnome2.2/
>deb-src http://mirror.raw.no/ gnome2.2/
Was more meant to supply a eclipse backport for woody. :) My
web
Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 08:29:14PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> > > He wants to know when a particular package was last updated, without
> > > having to download it and examine the gzip time stamp and/or changelog.
> >
> > It is unfortunate, that the
On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 09:10:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 07:56:42AM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> > Fellas, looking in the Packages files, some big packages have little
> > descriptions, some little packages have big descriptions,
>
> and this package description w
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
The description is adequate. The size of the package has nothing to do
with it.
> The Packages file could very well be the source
* Dan Jacobson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Too bad. The two are not, should not, and should never be related.
Stephen
pgpiYTdDuqfg2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 14:28, Guilherme de S. Pastore wrote:
> Hello people! =)
>
> I became a maintainer recently, when I took the prozilla package from Gustavo
> Noronha Silva (kov), a few days ago. I am now trying to finish my second
> Debian Package: cgiirc.
>
> Unfortunately, the program pu
Dan Jacobson writes:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
While extremely short descriptions might be a cause for concern regardless
of the size of the package, I don't see why larger packages should need
longe
Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
>> I was wondering, should I make a mass filing of bugs for those packages
>> who fail to produce a proper description?
> [...]
>
> I doubt that just filing bugs without fix makes sense, OTOH
> if you planned to submit 10 reports with "the des
Re: Re: [devel] Packages: an average 66321 bytes per line of description [Dan
Jacobson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:17:27PM +0800, <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>]
> I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
Where are the statistics for that? You only gave the av
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> Format: 1.7
> Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 23:29:15 +1000
> Source: vile
> Binary: xvile vile-filters vile vile-common
> Architecture: source sparc all
> Version: 9.3-s1
> Distribution: unstable
> Urgency: low
Hi Arnd Bergmann,
> On Tuesday 24 June 2003 02:00, Adam Heath wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Jun 2003, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
>> > In g++ 3.2, this code was distributed as "i386", and nobody noticed
>> > that it doesn't work on i386 for quite some time. In gcc 3.3, an
>> > implementation is provided that
[Ob-lists: if replying publicly, please reply to -devel only]
"Farideh Sherbaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Linux Developer and Distributor,
Hi,
> Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Farideh Sherbaf and
> I am your contact for EPSON Worldwide Developer Relations for scanners
Package: wnpp
Version: unavailable; reported 2003-06-24
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: debbackup
Version : 0.1
Upstream Author : Daniel Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.trinity.unimelb.edu.au/~dstone/debbackup/
(not functional yet)
*
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 03:29:23PM +0800, Dan Jacobson wrote:
> I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
> package justice by giving an adequate description.
File wishlist bugs with a patch for the long description then.
Michael
I was hoping that maintainers of multi-megabyte packages would do the
package justice by giving an adequate description.
The Packages file could very well be the source for decisions on what
gets chosen or not for ones system.
* Michael Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do.
> > > Why do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir
> > > is not only capable of storing messages in Maildir folders but
> > > also of generating them. This includes e.g.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:45:30AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do. Why
> > do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir is not
> > only capable of storing messages in Ma
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 09:45:30AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do. Why
> > do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir is not
> > only capable of storing messages in Ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Dienstag, 24. Juni 2003 09:45 schrieb Ralf Hildebrandt:
> * Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do.
> > Why do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir
> > is not o
* Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do. Why
> do we need it? Any program I know of which can handle Maildir is not
> only capable of storing messages in Maildir folders but also of
> generating them. This includes e.g. the exim(4)
I was hoping large package developers would write longer descriptions.
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:12:04PM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> My logic was that, from the basic system, Maildir mailboxes are no
> use.
Can I have a bit of the weed you are smoking? Seems to be good.
Package: mutt
Priority: standard
`standard'
These packages pro
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> But, I was looking around and wondering about that I couldn't find
> any `maildirmake' for Debian, excluding qmail-src, courier and
> maildrop, which I don't want/don't need to use.
[...]
You could start by telling us what maildirmake is supposed to do. Why
do we n
* Jan Schulz
| * David Goodenough wrote:
|
| >KDevelop comes as part of KDE, Eclipse is only available in unstable at the
| >moment (I don't think it has made it into testing yet but I may be wrong).
|
| Nope... On the other hand it is no problem to recompile it on woody
| systems. Only thing is
On Sun, 22 Jun 2003, Marek Habersack wrote:
thanks Marek. Can you ask him if he installed webmin updates without
using .debs? This is the most probable cause of his problem. It is a bad
idea because the packaging system is unaware of the changes and can, like
in this case, accidently overwrite
On Mon, 23 Jun 2003, David B Harris wrote:
> Given how simple it is, makes more sense to have it in one place. I
> don't know where it should be (in all the MTAs?), but there you go :)
>
Well I have one in dovecot but I don't see why it couldn't be in e.g.
debianutils.
--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <[EM
89 matches
Mail list logo
