On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 09:37:17PM -0800, Ken Bloom wrote:
> Is it possible to upgrade GPM in unstable to 1.20.1 (at least) which has
> been out for a long time now. It would fix a lot of brokenness in GPM.
I would love to see a gpm package that used the current upstream and
didn't add lots of dub
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:20:49PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> It does not need to. Feel free to propose a patch to document this
> more clearly (I don't really want to rename it again...)
Add something like this to the description:
These headers are not used to compile kernel modules,
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 01:14:41PM -0700, Chris de Vidal wrote:
> Volunteers needed!
> http://debtoo.org
You get Debian's benefits, like their stellar package
management, with *completely* optional optimization.
I would be interested in a source-based system that is focused on
convenience
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 11:03:53PM +0200, Otto Wyss wrote:
> I've now choosen "7dsc" since packages aren't commands.
How about something more descriptive than "dsc"? Say, "package",
"pkg", or "deb" (in my order of preference)?
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subjec
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 01:09:27AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> this problem is understood by the developers of proftpd
Wichert said that nobody has explained why the current fix on s.d.o
doesn't work. If the problem is understood, why hasn't someone
explained this? That's all that is asked,
[ Followup to incomplete send. ]
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 10:54:25AM -0500, Andrew Pimlott wrote:
> I think Wichert's position
... reflects appropriate discipline, given the (relatively modest)
severity of the problem.
Andrew
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a su
On Wed, Apr 03, 2002 at 03:22:39AM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> but give me at least one argument why these acts cannot combine with
> a *temporary* fix uploaded to the so-called "security archives".
There are several good reasons:
- If a band-aid fix is allowed, there is less incentive to f
On Thu, Mar 30, 2000 at 10:03:14AM -0500, Daniel Martin wrote:
> Well, if I do a
> $process | file -b - | magic2mime
>
> where "$process" is anything that produces a large amount of output
> slowly, then the process is killed by a SIGPIPE in short order.
>
> If, however, I do:
> $process | (file
On Mon, Oct 04, 1999 at 11:28:01PM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> Setting up tk8.2 (8.2.0-3) ...
> Checking available versions of wish, updating links in /etc/alternatives ...
> (You may modify the symlinks there yourself if desired - see `man ln'.)
> Leaving wish (/usr/bin/wish) pointing to /usr/b
On Thu, Sep 16, 1999 at 02:07:33AM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Philip Hands) writes:
> > Andrew Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (snip)
> > > May I ask what the point of these enhanced mbr's
On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 10:53:01PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Raul Miller wrote:
> > > They don't touch the root account. Instead, they clone
> > > it as sashroot and set the shell on the cloned account.
> > >
> > > This is mentioned in the package description.
>
> On Sun, Sep 19, 1999 at 03:39
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 07:51:47AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> You mean having to dive into almost every perl script (not Linux
> developed) and change #!/usr/local/bin/perl to #!/usr/bin/perl
It is unfortunate, but the popular usage (ie, #!/usr/local/bin/perl) is
wrong. /usr/bin/perl has alwa
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 07:53:07PM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> I just checked via dselect to see which packages on my slink/potato machine
> are not found in the potato archive. I wonder what happened to them.
> Here's my list (after removing the obvious ones like libgtk1.1.*):
>
> manpages-net
On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 07:57:58PM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 1999 at 09:32:05PM -0500, Brian Servis wrote:
> > Many modern monitors are 'plug-n-play'. I don't know how it all works
> > but they are able to tell the video card/drivers what frequencies they
> > support, etc. 'Pl
On Wed, Jan 20, 1999 at 04:03:26PM -0500, fantumn Steven Baker" wrote:
> Package Naming Scheme
The problem is superficial. Sure, names should be more uniform, but all
this requires is 1) ratifying naming standards and 2) ensuring that the
packaging system handles name changes gracefully.
> CVS
15 matches
Mail list logo
