Once upon a time Scott James Remnant said...
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
>
> > dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> > dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> > dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> > installation of foo-modules_
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:07:52PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> in ways that were not backwards-compatible: automatically pulling in the
> -utils could render the system networkless before you've even started to
> *build* the modules...
In theory, yes if ndiswrapper-modules has a versioned depen
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:51:54PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:17:19PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> >> It seems like the common case for wanting to install a kernel module
> >> source package is to build the module an
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:53:57AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > > dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
> >
> Note that I said "remove", the old fi
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 01:35 -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
>
Note that I said "remove", the old files are replaced during the unpack
phase rather than removed.
It's generally ass
At Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:59:41 -0600,
Marcelo E. Magallon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since the optimized i386 library does use MMX (it does perform runtime
> checking) and is compiled with -mcpu=i686 [0] (gcc doesn't seem to be
> emitting CMOVs though) I think the proper place is
> /usr/lib/i68
So I'm confused, because each mail seems to contain a plethora of
options, but when I picked through the last one and found what seemed
to be right, you say it's wrong.
So I just did two uploads already, based on the previous mail, which I
have apparently misunderstood. Please reject those (as I
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 06:16:01AM +, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> dpkg doesn't remove foo-modules_1.0 at all.
I used equivs to make a package "foo", version 1.0, and installed it.
I used equivs to make a package "foo", version 2.0, which depend on
"bar", which doesn't exist. Tried to instal
I just upgraded to cdrecord version 2.01+01a01-2.[1]
I found that with permissions -rwsr-xr-- on /usr/bin/cdrecord [2] that
I was able to record a CD without having to become root first using
dev=/dev/hdc and kernel 2.6.10 [3].
Do any others still have problems burning CD's as non-root with
kerne
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 18:40 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> [Otavio Salvador]
> > No because some applications doesn't depends only of configuration
> > files but data-files. When you purge then, all data files will be
> > removed together (in major of times). Another problem is how you can
>
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 20:38 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
> 10.01.2005 pisze Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for". I
> > > personally find it far more rude to go on a mailing list, ask for the
>
> > Do you *really* think that RTFM
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 05:05 +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
> Even if the d-d for ndiswrapper has done something wrong or not, even if
> the upstream package is better (I don't know the facts, and I'm not
> personally interested), it is NOT necessary to be rude and go on the
> offensive like this. Pleas
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:54:34PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
FWIW, our experiences with Ubuntu shows that having fast dinstall
cycles is very helpful. [...] It's a variant of the ïrelease often,
release earlyï principle.
(Strictly, it's an instance of the principle)
The dow
On Tue, 2005-01-11 at 11:15 +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> dpkg first removes foo-modules_1.0
> dpkg then check dependencies of foo-modules_2.0
> dpkg complains that foo-utils is not installed and aborts the
> installation of foo-modules_2.0
>
This is incorrect.
dpkg doesn't remove foo-module
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Anthony Towns writes:
PLEASE DON'T INTRODUCE NEW PACKAGE NAMES GRATUITOUSLY.
So it seemed to me that because of my previous mistake it wasn't
gratuitous.
See the previous message for non-gratuitous reasons to change package
names. That wasn't one of them.
Bumping the a
Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Anyway, Thomas, I've rejected your pending uploads, please start
> > again.
>
> Alas, I can't, because the mistaken upload of 0.7.0 under the name of
> libofx still happened, and is still in the archive causing problems.
This comment ("I can't
Anthony Towns writes:
> PLEASE DON'T INTRODUCE NEW PACKAGE NAMES GRATUITOUSLY.
So it seemed to me that because of my previous mistake it wasn't
gratuitous. Regardless, I'm happy to do whatever you think best,
provided it solves the problem.
I certainly do agree that it is a thing to be avoided
Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I've created libofx0 and libofx1 which are the old and new versions,
and ask the ftp-masters to drop the old package entirely. I'll
request the other user of libofx to adapt accordingly.
Gar.
PLEASE DON'T INTRODUCE NEW PACKAGE NA
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:17:19PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> It seems like the common case for wanting to install a kernel module
>> source package is to build the module and then install it on the same
>> box. Since the *-source package doesn't
Charles Plessy wrote:
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
Why don't guys go to psychology class before telling people not to
be 'rude'?
Then what about keeping jokes for our private messages to our
friends ? Your suggestion to go back to classes is, to my stand
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
lemma A:
If people disagree, that's their problem.
lemma B:
In any case, I strongly disagree with the stance that the rudeness of a
particular developer would reflect on Debian as a whole.
lemma C: That's your problem
proof
from B have "You disagree" by simp
with A show ?
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:55:30PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Chris Cheney
>
> | Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
> | strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
> | ffmpeg was allowed into main.
>
> According to rumors I heard, it
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 01:21:10PM +1100, Sam Watkins wrote:
> Public ing, unless in response to extreme provocation, is also
> very rude. If you want to killfile someone, go ahead. Send them a
> private message, but don't make a scene of it.
I disagree. There are times when I find it appropria
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:07:06 +0100, Christian Perrier
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > rm -rf [EMAIL PROTECTED] >/dev/null
> Nope, you're definitely wrong. The correct command line should be:
>
> cd "call wave" ; rm -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] >/dev/null
>
Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's impossible not to be rude on written media. What's a harmless joke
> to one is an insult to another, and an attack to one's personality to a
> third one. You can't expect everyone to be happy with everything you
> might possibly write.
Of course n
I accidentally posted the following to debian-user this morning, it was
supposed to go to debian-devel in this thread; please excuse me
re-posting it.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> It's impossible not to be rude on written media. What's a harmless
> joke to on
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is this possible? By my count, this leaves us with one package using
> each API. Wouldn't it be easier to port one of these packages to the new
> API, instead of bloating oldlibs for such a niche library? How different of
> an API are we talking
Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well... DJB was not trying to be specially nice
Is DJB _capable_ of being nice?!?
-Miles
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> How is this possible? By my count, this leaves us with one package using
> each API. Wouldn't it be easier to port one of these packages to the new
> API, instead of bloating oldlibs for such a niche library? How different of
> an API are we talking
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:19:10PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wrong thing to do.
> > The reason is explained in the changelog entry for libofx_0.6.2-6.
> > A package compiled with the old (pre
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marco d'Itri) writes:
> It works as advertised, and the FAQ says that it should not be used to
> block mail.
Hmmm, I looked at the FAQ, and found this -- buried in the middle of a
paragraph: "SpamCop encourages SCBL users to tag and divert email,
rather than block it outright."
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:16:52PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I would reupload the old library ASAP using a version number higher
> > than the current version in unstable, but in Section: oldlibs and
> > without the -dev package.
> > Then pac
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:36:50PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> dpkg doesn't do this because this isn't how dpkg works -- people wrote a
> higher-level tool, apt, to do that. People ignoring error messages from
> their package manager, breaking their system's network interface, and
> blaming the
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:15:26AM +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Once upon a time Steve Langasek said...
> >
> > There is nothing in the -source package that actually requires (or should
> > recommend) the -utils package. A much better fix here is for people to get
> > over the fact that dpkg
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wrong thing to do.
> The reason is explained in the changelog entry for libofx_0.6.2-6.
> A package compiled with the old (pre g++ 3.2) libofx0 library will
> not work with the "new" libofx0.
Yes; I did
On Tue, 10 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> I've created libofx0 and libofx1 which are the old and new versions,
> and ask the ftp-masters to drop the old package entirely. I'll
> request the other user of libofx to adapt accordingly.
IMHO, calling libofx0 the old library again is the wron
Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
>
> > Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package.
> > >
> > > No, they download something and unpacks it on a file system. They
> > > don't feed the
Thomas Bushnell BSG writes:
> Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package.
> >
> > No, they download something and unpacks it on a file system. They
> > don't feed the data they download into some device.
>
> So you think the
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | This is a canonical example of a network-downloader package.
>
> No, they download something and unpacks it on a file system. They
> don't feed the data they download into some device.
So you think the key difference is whether the data downloaded
I demand that Tollef Fog Heen may or may not have written...
> * Chris Cheney
>> Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that strictly
>> deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that ffmpeg was
>> allowed into main.
> According to rumors I heard, it was allowed
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:15:26AM +1100, Cameron Hutchison wrote:
> Is this the scenario being argued over?
Yes, that was exactly what I had in mind
>If so, why does dpkg not first
> check the dependencies of foo-modules_2.0 before removing
> foo-modules_1.0?
"Because it's a low-level tool inte
Santiago Vila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would reupload the old library ASAP using a version number higher
> than the current version in unstable, but in Section: oldlibs and
> without the -dev package.
>
> Then packages needing the new -dev package should definitely have to
> wait for the n
Once upon a time Steve Langasek said...
>
> There is nothing in the -source package that actually requires (or should
> recommend) the -utils package. A much better fix here is for people to get
> over the fact that dpkg isn't apt.
Apologies for continuing this but having read through the thread
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Oh, but wait, the version of ndiswrapper-source in testing is packaged by
> the same maintainer, and it works just fine for me.
Did you try building it against kernel 2.6.10?
Old versionf of upstream debs build against new kernels;
On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:16:00AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> If you use dpkg -i, sure you do. dpkg is a low-level tool; treating
> it as anything else will give surprising and annoying results.
Maybe authors of package-generating packages should point out that they
are only installable by
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:17:19PM -0600, Matthew Dempsky wrote:
> It seems like the common case for wanting to install a kernel module
> source package is to build the module and then install it on the same
> box. Since the *-source package doesn't really depend on *-utils, why
> not add a Recomm
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 16:51:07 -0500, Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Again, by this logic, all software in contrib due to non-free library
> dependencies should go in main; after all, they're "useful" for developing
> and testing free reimplementations of those libraries. This is just an
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:32:45AM -0500, William Ballard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
> > identify problems, both in upstream and packaged versions. Posting in
> > d-d is at least inappropriate.
> It's an open list.
And streets are public, but
* Thomas Bushnell BSG
| Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Imagine me having an USB device. The driver opens a network
| > connection to firmware.example.com, sends the device identification
| > string and gets another string. This one is sent to the USB device
| > which then do
* William Ballard
| On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
|
| But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
If you use dpkg -i, sure you do. dpkg is a low-level tool; treating
it as anything else
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
>On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:54:34PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>> >
>> >The downside of doing this is the extra load on the autobuilder
>> >network, so Debian might not want to do it because of that.
>>
>> It might affect the mirrors, too...
>
>It
I said:
> I would reupload the old library ASAP using a version number higher
> than the current version in unstable [...]
Or you could use the same version number but adding an epoch.
For example, libofx version 1:0.6.6-3.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubs
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> So I uploaded a new version of libofx. The problem is that the new
> version bumped the soname, and I forgot to change the binary package
> name to suit.
>
> Then after I received a bug report alerting me to the error, I fixed
> the package itsel
It seems like the common case for wanting to install a kernel module
source package is to build the module and then install it on the same
box. Since the *-source package doesn't really depend on *-utils, why
not add a Recommends line?
For example, ndiswrapper-source would Recommend ndiswrapper-u
On 10165 March 1977, Nico Golde wrote:
>> Right. I've checked with my boss and he's happy. It helps that we're
>> about to start opening up some of our code anyway, so any conflict
>> would be disappearing. I'll start digging into the bugs shortly to
>> help.
> Have fun with the coordination toget
* Chris Cheney
| Its all encumbered, there is a separate organization MPEG-LA that
| strictly deals with the licensing. It is quite surprising to me that
| ffmpeg was allowed into main.
According to rumors I heard, it was allowed in since other
applications (xine at least, I think) already inclu
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 10:54:34PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> >
> >FWIW, our experiences with Ubuntu shows that having fast dinstall
> >cycles is very helpful. You can sit and codevelop with people
> >uploading to the archive as you go and letting other people in on w
* "Marcelo E. Magallon"
| Are you thinking of say, the installer? I certainly *hope* that the
| installer is going to stay in the current status for at least another
| release! Another "whoos, let us restart from scratch" won't be
| welcome by anyone. And my hope is based on the fact that t
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
>
>FWIW, our experiences with Ubuntu shows that having fast dinstall
>cycles is very helpful. You can sit and codevelop with people
>uploading to the archive as you go and letting other people in on what
>you are doing rather than having private repositories or similar
>solu
hi per,
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 04:00:00PM +0100, Per Olofsson wrote:
> I've uploaded a new version of the pcmcia-cs package to experimental,
> 3.2.8-2. This package has a lot of new features, including:
this package seems to work for me without any major problems (so far,
anyway...), and it in f
So I uploaded a new version of libofx. The problem is that the new
version bumped the soname, and I forgot to change the binary package
name to suit.
Then after I received a bug report alerting me to the error, I fixed
the package itself to have a correct package name. The corrected
package is
Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> The downside of doing this is the extra load on the autobuilder
> network, so Debian might not want to do it because of that.
Unless we already have a lot of developers putting off an upload until
another day, this is a non-issue, since the autobuilders begin as soon
as a
* Steve Langasek
| There are really very few concrete benefits I can see to increasing the
| dinstall frequency, but one in particular is to speed up debian-installer
| testing. Most other bugs don't require a full dinstall cycle to give people
| a good idea whether they've been fixed, but the i
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 14:25:37 +1300 Nick Phillips wrote:
> The fact that we have conveniently
> ignored this problem when dealing with the GPL and BSD licenses so far
> does not make it go away.
It is my understanding that Debian packages refer to the GPL text in
/usr/share/common-licenses/ becaus
Quoting Michelle Konzack ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> rm -rf [EMAIL PROTECTED] >/dev/null
Nope, you're definitely wrong. The correct command line should be:
cd "call wave" ; rm -f [EMAIL PROTECTED] >/dev/null
The user explicitely asked for being removed from call wave only.:)
I'm pretty sure other
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 01:32:26PM -0800, Michael K. Edwards wrote:
> All of them are useful for
> developing and testing free firmware, as advocates of reverse
> engineering have pointed out.
Again, by this logic, all software in contrib due to non-free library
dependencies should go in main; aft
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 21:11 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 13:24 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
> > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 06:39 -0500, schreef David Mandelberg:
> > [snip]
> > > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 20:28 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:37 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
> >> > that's
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:14:29PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote :
> Why don't you guys go to psychology class before telling people not to
> be 'rude'?
> It's impossible not to be rude on written media. What's a harmless joke
> to one is an insult to another, and an attack to one's personality to
[whoops, hit "Send" instead of "Save Draft"]
> I think the best way to be honest about that is to exclude non-free
> firmware images from the kernel binary and modules themselves but to
> permit loading them from the initrd or the root filesystem. Initrd
> images in main shouldn't contain non-fre
Hi,
This should be debian-user question.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 03:03:48PM +0100, Bjorn Johansson wrote:
> I have a problem with the text (tty) terminals. The problem is that if I move
> from the x-server to an tty text terminal I can't go back and I can't switch
> to another tty terminal eith
hi,
* Steve McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-01-10 22:12]:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2005 at 08:13:46PM +, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> >>Unfortunately we dont have the time the package needs, so help is
> >>needed. Ideally you should know a bit of C and of Debian Packaging. You
> >>should also know cdrec
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 22:01:52 -0800, Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is not enough to say that you *could* create free firmware files. As a
> user of xpdf, I can unequivocally say that there are pdfs that I have full
> rights to, because *I created them*. I cannot say that about firm
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 09:40:47PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
>
> How can a couple of variables (not two dozens that you would need to get
> from the headers, environment and some other sources) mean tight
> coupling? In which world are you living?
Meaning it breaks it isn't there.
You're confus
* William Ballast [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 02:34:15PM]:
> > WTF? IIRC there are studies about where low cooupling and high cohesion
> > make sense and where not.
>
> All he uses from your include files are a couple of variables.
> That's low cohesion, tight coupling.
How can a couple of variables (not
Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:37 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
>> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
>> > that's what it's for"?
>> Yes, that's what it means.
> http://catb.org/~esr
On Monday 10 January 2005 22:25, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 15:12 -0500, schreef William Ballard:
> > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > > dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
> >
> > But you don't expect to do that for ot
Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 15:12 -0500, schreef William Ballard:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> > dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
>
> But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
You can also just run 'apt-get -f install' once th
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 08:33:02PM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> dpkg -I on the resulting package and looking at the depends?
But you don't expect to do that for other packages.
I have started to use temporary apt repositories instead of
dpkg -I which fixes my problem. And accepted that packag
Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 13:24 -0600, schreef Ron Johnson:
> On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 06:39 -0500, schreef David Mandelberg:
> [snip]
> > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for". I
> > personally find it far more rude to g
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:37 +, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
> > that's what it's for"?
>
> Yes, that's what it means.
Well, that's what I'd tell my grandmother that it means...
http:
Steve Greenland dijo [Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 06:44:24PM -0600]:
> > Is this really called for in changelogs? Note that the bug reports were
> > perfectly polite.
>
> Not really called for, but I understand the frustration with people who
> have nothing better to do than nag, and (for the second bug)
10.01.2005 pisze Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for". I
> > personally find it far more rude to go on a mailing list, ask for the
> Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
> that's what it's for"?
If one ha
Scripsit Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Do you *really* think that RTFM means "Go read the documentation,
> that's what it's for"?
Yes, that's what it means.
--
Henning Makholm "They discussed old Tommy Somebody and Jerry Someone Else."
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
* William Ballard
| Tell my why you'd ever want ndiswrapper-utils and not
| ndiswrapper-source. Then tell me if that's the most common
| case.
Because my distributor ships the ndiswrapper.ko driver in the
linux-restricted-modules (iirc) package.
| Just tell me how you work around this problem
On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 07:59:59PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> WTF? IIRC there are studies about where low cooupling and high cohesion
> make sense and where not.
All he uses from your include files are a couple of variables.
That's low cohesion, tight coupling.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EM
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:59 +0100, de Bladen wrote:
> In the meantime, begin to recompile Debian with staticaly linked
> packages. That is very important, you know. That evil libc causes such a
> mess of tight coupling, one could become crazy from just imaging all the
> possible consequences!!!
On Mon, 2005-01-10 at 19:14 +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Op ma, 10-01-2005 te 06:39 -0500, schreef David Mandelberg:
[snip]
> 'RTFM' means "Go read the documentation, that's what it's for". I
> personally find it far more rude to go on a mailing list, ask for the
Do you *really* think that RTFM
rm -rf [EMAIL PROTECTED] >/dev/null
done.
Am 2005-01-10 13:49:57, schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> remove me from call wave. thank you
- ENE OF REPLYED MESSAGE -
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
from:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
#include
* William Ballard [Mon, Jan 10 2005, 12:40:12PM]:
> The only thing it "has to have" module-assistant is a couple of
> variables in debian/rules. For that trivial advantage we now have tight
> coupling on the rest of module-assistant, which means if those variables
> change in module-
[Andrew Suffield]
> Seems like a poor reimplementation of a backup system to me. It's
> independently useful, and gains nothing from being embedded into the
> package manager, so why stuff it into the package manager?
I recommend reading the article, to gain some insight into the problem
it is try
Tollef Fog Heen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Imagine me having an USB device. The driver opens a network
> connection to firmware.example.com, sends the device identification
> string and gets another string. This one is sent to the USB device
> which then does what it's supposed to do.
This i
Kees Leune dijo [Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 02:19:18PM +0100]:
> Hi,
>
> I am preparing an ITP for a PHP application that is currently under
> development at my place of employment. While thinking about packaging
> it, I was wondering if there is any PHP application policy or best
> practice. I am now l
remove me from call wave. thank you
|| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:08:02 +
|| Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Such feature would be nice to have in Debian as well. If you have a
>> very short upgrade window, where one will have to abort and roll back
>> if the upgrade fail, it would be helpful if dpkg would allow you
Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Re: Paul van der Vlis in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> You will understand that my most important point is security-support.
> >
> > ...which Debian provides for its stable distribution at any time, even
> > if the last stable release was ages ago.
>
> Where is the security su
|| On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:40:39 +0100
|| Petter Reinholdtsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
pr> [Otavio Salvador]
>> No because some applications doesn't depends only of configuration
>> files but data-files. When you purge then, all data files will be
>> removed together (in major of times). Another
* Raul Miller
| On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 10:16:25AM +0100, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
| > However, if somebody writes a graphviz-client which just pushes the
| > dot file over the network to graphviz.example.com on some port and
| > gets a postscript file back, it can go into main. No matter what
| >
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
* Package name: kde-systray2
Version : 0.51
Upstream Author : Georges A.K. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* URL : http://www.kde-look.org/content/download.php?content=17732
* License : GPL
Description : KDE systray applet with icon h
1 - 100 of 147 matches
Mail list logo
